Preamble

The Home met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (No. 6) Bill.

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Water) Bill,

Read a Second time, and committed.

LONDON, MIDLAND, AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the London, Midland, and Scottish Railway," presented by Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act), to be considered To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal recently decided that the Hungarian Government was liable to British subjects for the payment of all their dividends which became due on the secured debt during the War; why the Hungarian Clearing Office has not yet admitted the claims affected by this decision; and will he, if no credits in respect of those claims have yet been received by the administrator of Hungarian property, lodge a protest with the Hungarian Government?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. A. V. Alexander): I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Immediately the decision referred to was given, the British Clearing Office addressed a note to the Hungarian office requesting an early credit in respect of these dividends, and a reply has been received, promising that the matter shall be dealt with expeditiously.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is this not further evidence that the Hungarian Government are deliberately adopting dilatory tactics in order to weary British claimants and make them drop their claims; and is it not time that the Foreign Office took a strong line on this matter?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I think I have already shown in my answer that we have made representations, and they have pledged their word to deal with the matter expeditiously.

Mr. SAMUEL: If I put a further question a fortnight hence, will the hon. Gentleman get a definite answer as to what is being done?

Oral Answers to Questions — SLAVERY (SUPPRESSION).

Mr. JOHN HARRIS: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in response to the request of his predecessor, reports have been received upon the existence of slave-owning and slave-trading in territories for which this country has contracted treaty obligations; and whether these reports will be issued in the form of Parliamentary Papers prior to the discussion on the Foreign Office Vote?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): In accordance with the request of the League of Nations, the Secretary of State for India and the Secretary of State for the Colonies have called for reports on the means taken to secure the suppression of slavery, and on the results of the application of the measures taken. I understand that no reports have yet been received, but they will be communicated to the League in due course. I assume that the hon. Member is not referring to Abyssinia, as under the Treaty of 1884 it was the Emperor Menelik and not His Majesty's Government who
undertook obligations in regard to the prevention of the traffic in slavery throughout his dominions.

Mr. HARRIS: May we rely upon these reports being given to this Parliament, and will they be published in this country, so that the public may know what is going on?

Mr. PONSONBY: I will consider that.

Captain BERKELEY: Is it not a fact that British warships are now being detailed for the purpose of putting down this traffic, and are not the public entitled to know the purpose for which their ships are being used?

Mr. LINFIELD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of these captured natives are citizens of the British Empire?

Oral Answers to Questions — MONTENEGRO (BRITISH CONSUL).

Mr. MOREL: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a British Consul has been appointed to Montenegro; if so, whether he will be requested to make an early report on the condition of the country; and if that report will be communicated to this House?

Mr. PONSONBY: Some delay has arisen in this appointment, since it has been found necessary to retain in his present post the officer originally selected; steps are, however, being taken to despatch a suitable officer to Cettinje who, in the course of his normal consular duties, will furnish a report on his new consular district so soon as he has sufficiently acquainted himself with local conditions. I cannot pledge the Government in advance to communicate to the House a report which is at present non-existent.

Mr. JAMES HOPE: Will the British Consul live at Cettinje or will he spend part of his time at Ragusa?

Mr. PONSONBY: The intention is that he shall live at Cettinje.

Colonel GRETTON: Will our Consul be a British subject or a foreigner?

Mr. PONSONBY: He will be a British subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

EMBASSY (LONDON).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that a communication has been sent to M. Sabline, who is acting as secretary of the remaining members of the old ambassadorial staff at the former Russian Embassy in London, calling upon him to vacate the premises to make way for a Soviet Ambassador and to hand over the archives at the Embassy to the Soviet representatives, he will state what action is proposed to be taken by the Government to enforce these demands; and when it is expected that an ambassador will be officially accredited to this country by the Soviet authorities?

Mr. PONSONBY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the terms of the answer given to the noble and gallant Member for South Battersea on Monday, in which it was explicitly stated that His Majesty's Government have no power to compel the present possessors either to vacate the premises or to surrender the archives. In reply to the second part of the question, I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member on the 5th of March last.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether it was on his instructions, and, if not, on whose instructions, that representations were made on behalf of the Foreign Office to the occupiers of Chesham House that these premises should be given up to the Russian Soviet delegation at present in this country; and whether, in view of the fact that the ownership of property in this country is a matter to be decided in case of dispute by the Courts of Law, he will state why the Executive Government interfered in this question?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): In reply to the first part of this question I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea on the 12th May. In their communication to the occupiers of Chesham House, His Majesty's Government expressed no opinion whether these premises were or were not the property of the late Tsarist Government; and their
action has not therefore prejudiced the right of the parties to obtain a decision on this point from the Courts of Law.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated on Monday that His Majesty's Government had informed the occupants of Chesham House that all property belonging to the late Russian Government should be handed over to the Soviet Delegation. If he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT he will find that that is so.

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, but may I suggest that the hon. Member is mixing up two things. There is undoubtedly property that belonged to the late Tsarist Government; there is also property that is alleged to have belonged to the late Tsarist Government. On the first point I think that the interest of everybody concerned is involved in a recognition of the continuity of responsibility. The second point, on which we express no opinion whatever, is one that must be decided by the Courts of Law.

Sir W. DAVISON: Surely all questions of ownership of property must be decided by the Courts of Law, and not by the Executive Government.

ANGLO-RUSSIAN CONFERENCE.

Mr. HANNON: 55.
asked the Prime Minister what are the special expenses incurred in connection with the Anglo-Soviet Conference; how many temporary appointments have been made for the duration of the Conference; and what are the salaries of the persons so employed?

The PRIME MINISTER: Two temporary appointments have been made for the duration of the Conference. The salary in one case is at the rate of £400 a year plus bonus (approximately £568 in all), and in the other case £12 a week. Both of the officers appointed have a fluent knowledge of Russian, which is required for the purposes of the Conference business, and are well acquainted with the questions under discussion. In addition, some small expenses, not exceeding £15, were incurred in connection with the preparation of verbatim reports of the first plenary meeting of the Conference.

Captain BRASS: When does the right hon. Gentleman think the results of the Conference will be published?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have questions covering that point later on.

Colonel GRETTON: 57.
asked the Prime Minister if the negotiations with the representatives of the Russian Government have made any progress; and if he will make a statement on the present position?

The PRIME MINISTER: Progress is being made with the negotiations, but I cannot yet foresee when I shall be able to make an announcement to the House.

Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand from the reply that the negotiations are to be kept secret until a later stage?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, the negotiations are to go on as negotiations until we are in a position to state something of substance.

Colonel GRETTON: Are we to understand from that reply that no progress of substance has been made?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I hope that the House will understand that these negotiations must be conducted in exactly the same way as any other negotiations.

Viscount WOLMER: Are we to understand from that that the Government still believe in secret diplomacy?

TRADE FACILITIES ACT.

Mr. HANNON: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether the issue of grants by the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee in respect of trade negotiations with Russia is one of the subjects engaging the attention of the Anglo-Soviet Conference; and when it is expected that an announcement will be made on this subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer I to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In answer to the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich on the 8th May.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

BATTLE OF JUTLAND (OFFICIAL ACCOUNT).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 8.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is proposed to publish the official account of the battle of Jutland?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): The answer is in the affirmative.

Viscount CURZON: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give us any idea when it is intended to publish this account?

Mr. AMMON: I am afraid that it is not possible to give the exact date, but it is the intention to publish it.

Viscount CURZON: At an early date?

TORPEDOES.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 9.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the stock of torpedoes numbering 8,507, valued by the Admiralty in 1921 at £14,500,000, is still maintained; and if the recommendation of the Geddes Committee that the rate of manufacture of new torpedoes should be reduced has been carried into effect?

Mr. AMMON: The figures as to numbers and value of torpedoes which the hon. Member quotes from the Geddes Committee's Report were arrived at by adding together torpedoes of all sorts of different types, old and new, and treating them as all being equally available for the use of ships of the post-War Fleet. This was an entire fallacy, which was exposed at the time in the Admiralty reply. The stock of torpedoes maintained for the Naval Service is that which is regarded as sufficient for present practice and future needs, and the rate of manufacture since the War has been carefully regulated to what is necessary to meet these requirements.

AMMUNITION.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 10.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if the amount of ammunition reported to the Geddes Committee as being equivalent to 20 years' consumption on the basis of the late War has been reduced; and what is the amount of expenditure to be incurred for this purpose in the current financial year?

Mr. AMMON: The statement by the Geddes Committee that ammunition equivalent to 20 years' consumption on the basis of the late War was being retained by the Admiralty, was not taken from reports made to them by the Admiralty. It was merely a conclusion drawn by the Committee from certain data supplied to them, and did not accurately represent the position. As the Geddes Committee was clearly informed, the ammunition held at that time in excess of the approved reserves was, generally speaking, of obsolete types, which could not be used in the guns with which the ships of the post-War Fleet are armed. It has since been either utilised, as far as possible, in aid of other requirements, or disposed of to the best advantage. No special expenditure has been included in the Estimates for the current financial year in respect of the disposal of surplus ammunition. The sum included in the Navy Estimates, 1924–5, for purchase of ammunition is £943,600, but this is mainly for ammunition for new ships and for types of ammunition not available for ships in the post-War Fleet.

ROYAL MARINE PRINTING OFFICE.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: 11.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that election literature for a Labour candidate at the recent election of guardians for the Medway Union was printed at the Royal Marine barracks at Chatham; whether any payment was made in respect of this work; and whether disciplinary action has been taken against the Government servants responsible for this irregularity?

Mr. AMMON: I was not aware of the facts stated, and I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for calling attention to the matter. The Regulations do not permit of such work being performed in the Royal Marine Printing Office, and the officer in charge has been cautioned to be more careful in future. The wording of the Regulations has also been altered so as to make it quite clear that private printing for persons or purposes not connected with the Service is not to be undertaken. The particular work referred to was paid for.

CHART ESTABLISHMENT, CRICKLEWOOD.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: 12.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty
whether the Admiralty printing works at Cricklewood, on which large sums of public money have been expended, is producing work solely for Admiralty use; whether any portion of the work producer has been sold for use in the mercantile marine; and, if so, whether the Government will take steps to prevent such competition with private enterprise in the printing trade?

Mr. AMMON: The Admiralty Chart Establishment, Cricklewood, produces Admiralty Charts both for His Majesty's ships and sale to the mercantile marine and public generally. A very small quantity of other lithographic printing is produced for other Government Departments where this can be economically undertaken without prejudice to Admiralty requirements. With regard to the last part of the question, I fail to see how the sale of Admiralty charts to the mercantile marine involves competition with private enterprise, since these charts are based on the results of surveys by His Majesty's ships and other hydrographic material accumulated by the Admiralty, and no private firm has the data from which to produce similar charts. If, however, the hon. and gallant Member is alluding to the general policy of the Government establishing its own factories for carrying out printing and other kindred processes, I would remind him that this question is at present under the consideration of a Committee presided over by the hon. and gallant Member for the Burton Division.

OFFICERS' PENSIONS.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 13.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in the reduction of 5½ per cent. in the pensions of naval officers, consideration has been given to the extra cost of rents, rates, education fees, etc., which are now entailed upon officers but to whom the Ministry of Labour index figure is not applicable, especially in regard to education?

Mr. AMMON: In accordance with a Government decision of 1919, the revision of the retired pay of naval officers is based entirely upon the cost of living, as indicated by the Ministry of Labour index figure. That figure, as the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, is used in dealing with the bonus of the Civil Service, whatever the rate of their salary,
and is also extensively used by municipal bodies, railway companies, banks, etc., for dealing with their salaried staffs.

Sir C. YATE: Is it fair to deal with the officers of the Navy who have to pay for the education of their children in this way, when the index figure includes free education?

Mr. AMMON: I fail to see why officers of the Navy should be treated any differently from other salaried people.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is it not a fact that increases in the bonus have been paid to civil servants recently?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise here.

SCAPA FLOW (BLOCK-SHIP WRECK).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 14.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a fishing boat having been lost owing to striking in the dark the wreck of a block-ship in Weddel Sound, Scapa Flow, the Admiralty has refused to consider the payment of compensation to the owner; whether he is prepared to reconsider that decision; and whether he can state what steps the Admiralty intend to take to guard against such occurrences in the future?

Mr. AMMON: The question of liability for any damage which may arise from the presence of the block-ships has already been fully considered, and the Admiralty have been advised that no responsibility can attach to them in the matter of such damage. I regret, therefore, that the Admiralty are unable to reconsider the decision in regard to the alleged loss of the fishing boat.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Is it the intention of the Admiralty to maintain this blockade of wrecks round the island and not pay compensation to those who suffer damage from them?

Mr. AMMON: I have answered many questions put by the hon. Member on this subject, and I have pointed out that we are advised that the waterways and the channel are well open and suitable for the navigation of the district.

Colonel ASHLEY: Have steps been taken to buoy the channel, so as to indicate to fishermen where they can safely go?

Mr. AMMON: Every step has been taken to make navigation quite safe.

Sir R. HAMILTON: In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 15.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to hold an inquiry or Commission into the number and suitability of the existing Royal Dockyards and the uses to which they can be put in the event of further reduction in naval armaments; and, if so, what will be the nature of the inquiry or Commission?

Mr. AMMON: The matter is already the subject of investigation by the Board of Admiralty, and no need is seen for any formal inquiry.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present situation has arisen owing to the matter having only been under the consideration of the Admiralty officials, and that, in the Debate on Thursday last, there was agreement in all parts of the House as to the necessity for setting up a Commission to look into the whole question?

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the great anxiety that is felt in the dockyards in view of that Debate, and the prophecies that were then made?

Mr. AMMON: There is no need for anxiety, except such as might be raised by hon. Members themselves. As the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) will see, inquiry by the Admiralty must precede anything else.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not the case that the Admiralty wish to cut down these dockyards but are overridden by political considerations, and would it not be advisable to get some independent committee to inquire into the matter?

Mr. J. JONES: May I ask when some of our Front Bench men are going to get cut of the hands of the officials?

OFFICERS' PAY.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the low pay of officers in the Royal Navy as compared with comparative ranks in the other fighting services and of the high technical skill demanded of our naval officers, he can see his way to propose increases in naval officers' pay to bring them on a level with their equivalent ranks in the Army and Air Force?

Mr. AMMON: Such inequalities as exist in the pay and emoluments of officers of the Navy, Army and Air Force are now under consideration.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will it be sympathetic consideration from the point of view of naval officers?

Sir C. YATE: Is it consideration with a view to reduction?

Major HORE-BELISHA: 19.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty with reference to the reduction of naval officers' pay, if he will state exactly what reduction is proposed, and whether the reduction will affect the whole pay and pension, and, if not, what percentage of it; if he will state whether his attention has been called to A.F.O. 752 of 28th March, 1924, which indicated that 20 per cent. only of the increases given in 1919 would be subject to variation in accordance with the rise or fall in the cost of living; and whether, if he has irrevocably determined on the reductions, he will see that they do not affect more than 20 per cent. of the pay and pensions, in accordance with the official pronouncement quoted?

Mr. AMMON: The answer to the first part of the question is that the reduction is approximately 5½ per cent., and will apply to the whole of the pay and retired pay of officers. As regards the second part of the question, the Admiralty Fleet Order quoted definitely states that 20 per cent. of the new rates of pay and retired pay are subject to revision in accordance with the rise or fall in the cost of living, and there is no reference to increases given in 1919 as the hon. Member suggests. I am happy to be able to give the assurance desired in the concluding part of the question, that in no case will more than 20 per cent. of the pay and retired pay be affected.

Sir C. YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman, instead of naming this 5½ per cent. on the whole, give us the percentage on the 20 per cent. that he has now mentioned?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet should put that question down.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Will the hon. Gentleman say what is the meaning of the 20 per cent.?

Mr. AMMON: The meaning is that 20 per cent. is the maximum reduction that can be made, and 5½ per cent. of that 20 per cent. is now made.

Sir C. YATE: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much of the 20 per cent. is reduced?

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: In the event of the cost of living going up, will the 5½ per cent. be modified?

Mr. AMMON: I have already indicated that this is a matter which rises and falls with the cost of living.

MARRIAGE ALLOWANCE.

Major HORE-BELISHA: 18.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether a decision has been reached in regard to marriage allowance for officers in the Royal Navy?

Mr. AMMON: The answer is in the negative.

RETIRED OFFICERS (COMMITTEE).

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: 20.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to tie Admiralty if the Committee set up to inquire into the treatment of retired naval officers will have power to call witnesses; how such witnesses will be selected and called, or to whom gentemen wishing to be called should apply; if travelling expenses will be granted; if the Committee will have power to examine on oath; if counsel will be permitted to be present; and when and where the Committee will sit?

Mr. AMMON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The points raised in the second and sixth parts are matters of procedure which will be left to the Committee to decide. I am, therefore, not in a position to give information on these beyond stating that it is hoped that the Committee's meetings
will commence at an early date, and that if applications to appear as witnesses are addressed to the Admiralty, they will be transmitted to the Committee. As regards the fourth and fifth parts of the question, the Admiralty do not consider it necessary that the Committee should have power to examine on oath, or that counsel should be present at the meetings. Travelling expenses will be refunded in accordance with the Regulations to all witnesses who may be called upon by the Committee to give evidence.

Sir B. FALLE: Could the hon. Gentleman say where the Committee is to sit, as asked in the last part of the question?

Mr. AMMON: That is a matter that comes within the authority of the Committee.

Major HORE-BELISHA: In view of the statement of the Secretary for the Colonies, will the retired naval officers be directly represented on this Committee?

Mr. AMMON: The hon. and gallant Member evidently, did not give attention when the names were read out. There was such a name among them.

Major HORE-BELISHA: I asked that question, and the right hon. Gentleman said he did not know.

IRAQ AND NORTH-WEST PERSIA CLASPS.

Viscount CURZON: 22.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that an award of the Naval General Service Medal with clasps for Iraq, 1919–20, and North-West Persia, 1919–20, has been approved for the Naval personnel engaged in the operations; whether he can state if it is intended to issue the clasps; and, if so, whether it is intended to do so before awarding the clasps authorised for the late War?

Mr. AMMON: The answer is in the affirmative. The Naval General Service Medal with clasps, "Iraq, 1919–1920" and "North-West Persia, 1919–1920" has been approved for the Naval personnel engaged in the operations for which the General Service Medal with clasps is being issued to the Army. The number entitled is only about 100, and the awards can be made without difficulty.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand that clasps are being awarded for operations subsequent to the great War, but not for the great War itself?

Mr. AMMON: This matter is largely one of staff and expense, and we are able to deal with this with our present staff without any difficulty.

Mr. J. JONES: Will any medals be issued to Members of Parliament who are convicted in connection with motor driving?

Viscount CURZON: Like the Mayor of West Ham.

WIRELESS EXERCISES.

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: 23.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if, without detriment to naval wireless signalling, it is possible to curtail wireless exercises and the sending of wireless messages between the hours of 8 p.m. and 10 p.m.; and will he confer a boon on thousands of wireless licence-holders in this country by taking steps to reduce to a minimum the messages sent during these hours in order that people listening-in to the British Broadcasting Company concerts may have as little interference as possible?

Mr. AMMON: No wireless exercises are laid down in Admiralty orders to be carried out between the hours mentioned. The attention of the commanders-in-chief concerned is being drawn to the desirability of reducing naval W/T signalling during these hours to a minimum, consistent with service requirements.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL PROGRAMMES (UNITED STATES AND ITALY).

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 16.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the new naval plans of the United States of America in respect of warship construction this year; and whether he can give any details as to the similar plans of the Italian Admiralty?

Mr. AMMON: Proposals are now before the United States Congress to build eight 10,000-ton light cruisers, six river gunboats and one submarine. According to our present information, two 10,000-ton light cruisers, four destroyers and four submarines are to be laid down by Italy shortly.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Does the hon. Gentleman now deny that the Government's cruiser programme has stimulated a competition in international armaments?

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is it not the fact that these proposals were under consideration before we passed our own naval programme?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for argument.

Oral Answers to Questions — McKENNA DUTIES.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour what is the entire number of skilled and unskilled workers employed in all the industries which enjoy the benefit of the McKenna Duties; and whether he will give the number of unemployed in the same trades?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Thomas Shaw): As was stated in a reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury on 12th May, it has been estimated that the number of workpeople engaged in the branches of trade affected directly or indirectly by these duties would not exceed 200,000, and may be considerably less. As the classification of trades for which the statistics of unemployment are compiled does not show separately the branches of trade affected by the duties, I regret that it is not possible to give any reliable figure for the numbers unemployed.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Is it not a fact that a large number of these men and their wives are wearing mourning to-day?

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman do all he can to make provision now for the men who will be thrown out of work in these trades during the next three months? He will want it.

Mr. SHAW: Yes, if any.

Sir F. HALL: 31.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons employed in the motor industry in this country in 1914; and what is the number employed at the present time?

Mr. SHAW: There are no statistics showing separately the number of persons employed in motor car construction either now or in 1914. I gave the hon.
and gallant Member on 7th May the available figures for July, 1923, which is that in respect of a group of trades covering the construction and repair of motor cars, motor lorries, motor omnibuses, motor cycles, pedal cycles and aircraft, but there are no comparable statistics for a pre-War date.

Sir F. HALL: If there are no comparable statistics of pre-War date, how is it the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to deny the correctness of the figures given by hon. Members on this side yesterday?

Mr. SHAW: That question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get these statistics, because they may be rather illuminating in the next few months?

Mr. SHAW: The Geddes axe was applied very violently to the statistical branch of my Department, and that so-called economy, I regret to say, is the cause of my not being able to give the answer desired.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman not hiding himself under that, and has he not found it convenient—

Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!

Mr. LORIMER: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour the nature of the scheme to absorb the workmen in Long Eaton and district who will be rendered out of work by the abolition of the McKenna Duties?

Mr. SHAW: This is a purely hypothetic question, and I am not prepared to admit the premise which it contains. The matter was dealt with fully in the course of the Debate yesterday.

Mr. LORIMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, had I been allowed to take part in the Debate yesterday, I should have dealt with the points raised in the question, but that there was no time because the Debate was prolonged by the interminable length of the speech of his right hon. Friend?

Mr. SHAW: I have not the slightest doubt that, if the hon. Member had made his speech, the result would have been altogether different.

Captain BRASS: 65.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken by
his Department to deal with, or collect information as to, men who have been or are being discharged, or put on short time, by manufacturers of motor cars in view of the lapsing of the McKenna Duties; whether any instructions have been issued to Employment Exchanges by circular letter or otherwise instructing them to obtain data, or to approach the manufacturers with reference to this matter; and, if so, what are the exact terms of the instructions?

Mr. SHAW: In connection with the usual monthly meeting of the Divisional Controllers of the Department held last week, the Controllers were asked to bring with them any information they might have on this matter, and in consequence some inquiries were made locally at certain Exchanges. Beyond this, no special instructions have been issued for the collection of information. The Department will watch carefully the developments which will take place.

Captain BRASS: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer so as to receive the necessary money for the doles which will ensue?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: In view of the importance of these statistics, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to what exactly the cost will be for obtaining the information in full?

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is estimated that, as a result of yesterday's vote, the cost will be an additional £7,000,000?

Oral Answers to Questions — APPRENTICESHIP SYSTEM.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the very large number of young men having no trade experience, he can state the number and character of trades which have an apprenticeship system; whether, where apprenticeship systems are in vogue, there are any vacancies which might still be filled by candidates were they forthcoming; and whether there are any trades, skilled or otherwise, closed to further applications should these be forthcoming?

Mr. SHAW: An apprenticeship system of one kind or another is operative in a
large number of trades, but the information available is insufficient to enable the particulars asked for to be given. In general, the number of youths desiring apprenticeships is believed to exceed the number of vacancies available for them, and in certain trades there are waiting lists of boys. With regard to the last part of the question, I am not aware of any trade of importance which is closed to new entrants.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Would it not be possible to extend the apprenticeship system where there are waiting boys, in view of the enormous number of lads who are at present out of work?

Mr. SHAW: That is quite a different question from the one on the Paper.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say who fixes the number of years during which these boys have to be apprenticed? [HON. MEMBERS: "The bosses!"] If the number of years could be shortened, naturally we could get more into the trades.

Mr. SHAW: I think the provisions are generally fixed by the employers, sometimes in consultation with the trade unions.

Mr. HARDIE: In view of the Report issued in the building trade relating to the admission of boys to trades, is there going to be any alignment in the system of apprenticeship on the basis of what is contained in the Report with regard to building houses?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question should be put on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH VISITORS TO ENGLAND.

Mr. EMLYN-JONES: 26.
asked the Minister of Labour if an arrangement has been arrived at between himself and the Minister of Labour in France for 500 French citizens to come annually to England to learn the English language; if he will state the reason for such an agreement; and whether he has information as to the number of English citizens who have been in the habit of visiting France annually for the purpose of learning the French language?

Mr. SHAW: Under an arrangement concluded about the middle of January
as the result of negotiations carried on last year, a maximum annually of 500 French subjects may come to this country for employment in order to perfect their knowledge of the English language and English commercial methods, subject to a permit being granted in each individual case by my Department and the application being endorsed by the French Ministry of Labour. The arrangement will enable my Department to exercise more effectively its powers with regard to the issue of permits, and I have reserved the right to restrict the number of applications granted either generally or in respect of any particular occupation, in the light of the volume of unemployment which may prevail. I have no information as to the last part of the question.

Mr. JONES: Is there any limit to the number of British subjects who can go to France to learn the language under this arrangement?

Mr. SHAW: Not that I am aware of.

Mr. LUMLEY: How long will these 500 applicants be allowed to remain in the country under these permits?

Mr. SHAW: It depends on the circumstances of the case. The ordinary policy of the Department is a continuation of the policy of the last Government, which is not to allow any alien to come into the country if there is a danger of other people being thrown out of work.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: How many have availed themselves of this advantage?

Mr. SHAW: I am afraid I do not carry the statistics of my Department in my head.

Captain BERKELEY: How does the right hon. Gentleman draw a distinction between those who may come in and those who may not?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

DURHAM MINERS.

Mr. BATEY: 28
asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he is aware that three married miners living in the county of Durham were ordered to leave their wives and families and go to work in Nottingham, and because they refused to do so their unemployment benefit was stopped; and if he knows that, owing to the low wages in the mining industry, it
is impossible for a miner to pay for lodgings in one county and keep his wife and family in another; and will he inquire into the matter;
(2) if he is aware that a number of young miners living in the county of Durham, during the first week of their unemployment, were ordered by the Employment Exchange to leave home and go to work in the county of Northumberland; and whether he will inform Employment Exchanges in the county of Durham to cease giving such orders;
(3) if he is aware that a miner, in the county of Durham, whose wife had died and left him with three children, had his unemployed benefit stopped because he refused to leave his children in the county of Durham and go to work at Doncaster, and that the miners' secretary at the colliery at Doncaster says there was no work for the man if he had gone there; and whether this man's unemployed benefit can be paid up?

Mr. SHAW: I regret I cannot undertake to deal with points of this kind unless particulars sufficient to identify the cases are given. If my hon. Friend will give me the necessary particulars I will look into the cases at once.

Mr. BATEY: Should not I have an answer to these three cases separately? They have already been before the Minister privately, and we have not been able to get any satisfaction.

Mr. SHAW: I can only say again, that if these three questions are read it will be noted that there is no name by which I can identify the case or cases. If the names are given me I will make inquiries.

Mr. BATEY: The Minister is under a misapprehension. He has had the cases before him privately. In the first case he does not need the name. The point raised is whether a married miner at present can afford to keep a wife and family and pay for lodgings with the present wages in the coal trade.

Mr. G. SPENCER: Has my right hon. Friend satisfied himself that there are not sufficient men in Nottingham to fill all the positions in the mining industry?

Mr. RHYS: Is the system referred to in Question 28 that which obtains in Communist Russia?

Mr. BATEY: Am I not entitled to put numbers 29 and 30?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has put his questions, and the Minister has chosen to answer them together.

Mr. BATEY: Does that mean that the Minister can refuse to answer them?

Mr. SPEAKER: I advise the hon. Member to repeat his questions with the details asked for.

Mr. BATEY: I beg to give notice that I will raise the question on the Adjournment to-morrow.

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. LUMLEY: 32
asked the Minister of Labour (1) the number of persons employed on schemes sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee on 21st January and 21st April, respectively, of this year;
(2) the number of men employed on road schemes for the relief of unemployment on 21st January and 21st April, respectively, of this year;
(3) the number of persons employed on Government schemes for the relief of unemployment, other than road schemes and schemes sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee, on 21st January and 21st April, respectively, of this year?

Mr. SHAW: I propose, as the answer involves a table of figures, to circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. BETTERTON: Do these schemes include any schemes for which provision was not made prior to January this year?

Mr. SHAW: I understand that a discussion on this matter will take place on the Vote for the Minister's salary, and I think hon. Members may restrain their belligerent ardour till then.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Knowing our grave anxiety on this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman promise in that Debate to give us the figures for which we have repeatedly asked?

Mr. SHAW: I will, in that Debate, give all the figures I know, including the number of men employed now more than under the late Government, the steps that have been taken throughout and every other piece of information I can get.

Mr. LUMLEY: In view of the fact that I put three questions down and that each only requires two figures, could not the right hon. Gentleman give us the figures now?

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Do we understand that, in this Debate, the Minister is going to release this secret of how unemployment is going to be cured?

Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Is it in order for a Minister, when three simple questions are put, which can be answered very shortly, to lump them together, so as to make a long answer, and thereby suggest that it should be circulated?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have enough to do without controlling Ministers. If hon. Members wish to have a long answer read at the expense of later questions I do not doubt the Minister will give the figures.

Mr. PRINGLE: You have laid down regulations as to the number of questions which a Member may put. If he uses his right to break up a question into three separate parts so as to get an oral answer is it in order for the Minister further to restrict the rights of the Member to get an oral answer by putting three questions together?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have said it is not a question of order, but of the convenience of the House. I do not doubt that the Minister will meet the desire of the House.

Mr. SHAW: read the answer prepared, as follows: So far as Returns have been received by my Department, the numbers of men directly employed on the 25th January, 1924 and the 25 April, 1924 (or nearest available dates), are:

25th January.
25th April.


1. Road Schemes assisted by the Ministry of Transport.
17,050
17,078


2. Schemes assisted by the Unemployment Grants Committee.
41,551
47,161


3. Schemes of Land Drainage and Water Supply (Ministry of Agriculture and Scottish Board of Agriculture).
4,130
7,014


4. Schemes of Afforestation
1,710
2,274


5. Schemes guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Acts.
27,676 (Dec. 31st, 1923).
33,569 (March 31st, 1924).


6. Miscellaneous
476
1,166



92,593
108,262


Increase = 15,669

Item I does not include the number of men employed on works of road maintenance or ordinary road improvement, but includes (as does also Item 2) men temporarily "stood off." All the above figures are exclusive of men who are employed indirectly, for example, in the preparation and transport of materials.

CONTRIBUTION'S (REFUNDS).

Mr. RENDALL: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is prepared to consider an amendment of the Unemployment Insurance Act under which no return of premiums is made to the widow of a man dying at the age of 56, although he has never received a penny of benefit during his life?

Mr. SHAW: The Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill now before Parliament contains in Clause 9 a proposal to abolish these refunds altogether for the future, subject to certain arrangements for compensation for the loss of existing rights. I regret therefore that I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion.

PAYMENT AT COTTON MILLS.

Mr. WADDINGTON: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that his predecessor allowed payment of unemployment insurance to be made at cotton mills, for the convenience of the employés at such mills; is he aware that this concession has now been withdrawn and is causing serious hardship, by compelling a considerable number of persons to stand in the street in consequence of the lack of accommodation at the Labour Exchange where the unemployment insurance is now paid; and will he again allow payment to be made at the mills?

Mr. SHAW: Arrangements for paying unemployment benefit at cotton mills are made only when the pressure of work at the local office is such as to prevent the adoption of the ordinary procedure. A number of such arrangements are still in force in the cotton districts. I am not aware of any cases in which considerable numbers of persons are compelled to stand in the street in consequence of the lack of accommodation at the local office, but if my hon. Friend can furnish particulars I will have inquiry made, and will endeavour to remove the grievance if such exists.

Mr. WADDINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman had these particulars given on the 5th April, and he replied that he could not make the concession then. This deals with more than 200 people, and where more than 200 people are employed will he allow them to be paid at the mills instead of having to go to the Employment Exchanges?

Mr. SHAW: I think the hon. Member will see from the last part of my answer that, where a case can be shown in which hardship exists, I am willing to go into the matter and to try to remedy the grievance.

VOLUNTARY UNEMPLOYMENT.

Sir C. YATE: 37.
asked the Minister of Labour the conditions that must be satisfied by a person who leaves his or her work voluntarily without just cause to entitle them to make a claim for unemployment benefit after the expiration of six weeks?

Mr. SHAW: It is impossible to state within the limits of an answer to a question all the conditions which an applicant in the circumstances mentioned would be required to fulfil. These conditions are set out in a leaflet of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

Sir C. YATE: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that the conditions, whatever they are, are properly enforced?

Mr. SHAW: As far as I can, that is my intention.

JUVENILES.

Sir CYRIL COBB: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the number of young persons between the ages of 16 and 18 in England and Wales; the number of such young persons registered at the Unemployment Exchanges; and the number under instruction at the education centres for unemployed juveniles?

Mr. SHAW: As the reply is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The 1921 census shows 697,219 boys and 711,001 girls between 16 and 18 years of age in England and Wales. The number of persons between 14 and 18 years of
age registered on 28th April, 1924, at Employment Exchanges and Juvenile Employment Bureaux in England and Wales was 29,720 boys and 28,118 girls. I cannot give separate figures for those between 14 and 16 years of age The average daily number of boys and girls in attendance at juvenile unemployment centres during the week ended 30th April, 1924, was 4,849 (3,137 boys and 1,712 girls), of whom about 4,000 (2,600 boys and 1,400 girls) were between 16 and 18 years of age. A total of 53,520 boys and girls have passed through the juvenile unemployment centres between 17th September, 1923, and 30th April, 1924.

BRADFORD.

Mr. H. H. SPENCER: 43.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can give the figures for unemployment in Bradford in December last, about the date of the General Election, and those of the 28th April; and whether he can give the House any reasons for the very great improvement in the condition of employment during the last five months?

Mr. SHAW: On 28th April the number of insured workpeople in Bradford registered as unemployed or working systematic short-time was 6,265, as compared with 12,882 at 21st December, 1923. About two-thirds of this decrease is attributable to the woollen and worsted industry, in which there has been a continuous improvement since December. There has also been an improvement in the last three months in the Bradford engineering and ironfounding trades. I could not undertake to specify the reasons for the improvement in trade which has taken place.

Mr. SPENCER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that just before the General Election there was a demand by a section of the manufacturers of Bradford to get 33⅓ per cent. under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, and that it was refused and we have done without it?

Mr. SHAW: I am quite aware of that.

Mr. B. TURNER: Is it not a fact that the Minister of Labour could answer that the state of trade has improved ever since the Labour Government came into office?

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman supply figures for Bradford
as to how much drink is consumed by the unemployed in Bradford as compared with Glasgow?

WORKING HOURS LOST.

Mr. BAKER: 63.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the number of working hours lost through unemployment and under-employment in 1913, 1922 and 1923?

Mr. SHAW: The information in my possession does not enable me to state the total number of hours lost through unemployment and under-employment. I may say, however, that an examination of a representative number of claims to benefit made by insured workpeople during the period 2nd November, 1922, to 17th October, 1923, leads me to conclude that during this period of 11½ months the amount of unemployment ranking for benefit or "waiting periods" among the 11½ million insured workpeople in Great Britain was, approximately, 300 million days. No comparable information exists for earlier periods nor is it possible to measure the time lost by those who, though employed, were not working full time.

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many hours have been lost by strikes?

Mr. SHAW: If the Noble Lord will put a question on the Paper I will try to answer it.

Sir V. WARRENDER: Am I to understand that the Government is to confer a Barony upon me?

Mr. SHAW: From his appearance the hon. Member, I thought, was a junior member of the Peerage.

BENEFIT SUSPENSION.

Mr. THURTLE: 66.
asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that a man who refused to work overtime and was in consequence discharged from his employment was suspended from unemployment benefit for a period of six weeks, on the ground that he had refused work; and on what ground does his Department take such action?

Mr. SHAW: My hon. Friend does not give the name of the man or his employer, or even the town where the man was
suspended. If he will let me have particulars of the case to which he refers, I will have inquiries made and write to him on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — LACE INDUSTRY.

Mr. HAYDAY: 38.
asked the Minister of Labour what are the total number of persons of all ages employed in all branches of the lace industry in Nottingham, together with the number unemployed or working short time?

Mr. SHAW: The estimated number of insured workpeople, 16 years of age and over, engaged in the lace industry in the area of the Nottingham Employment Exchange is 9,370, and on 28th April the number of such persons registered as unemployed was 1,322, or 14.1 per cent. of the total. This number includes those on short time and not working at the date of the return

Mr. BETTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these figures do not include large numbers of men and women formerly in the lace trade who are now unemployed?

Mr. SHAW: I cannot tell that.

Mr. LORIMER: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour if, when the unanimous recommendation of the Committee on the lace industry was turned down, the Government took into consideration the shorter hours worked, and the superior conditions under which the British worker labours, as against his foreign competitor?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I have been asked to reply. As the President of the Board of Trade informed the hon. Member yesterday, all relevant considerations were taken fully into account before a decision was reached by the Government on this matter.

Mr. BETTERTON: Is the hon. Member prepared at the Board of Trade to receive a deputation from those interested in the trade, in view of the fact that the turning down of the Report means the destruction of the trade?

Mr. ALEXANDER: I shall have to refer that question to my right hon. Friend, but I would point out that the
Government have already announced their decision on the general question of the Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE BOARDS (DRESSMAKING AND MILLINERY TRADES).

Mr. STURROCK: 42.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the resolution passed by the Drapers' Chamber of Trade, in which it is declared that trade boards have had a disastrous effect upon the dressmaking, bespoke and millinery trades he will inform the House of further contemplated extensions of these boards, so that full consideration can be given to the question of safeguarding traders in smaller towns who find themselves handicapped in business by reason of the imposition of rates of wages based upon the conditions prevailing in the larger centres?

Mr. SHAW: I have seen the resolution in question, but I do not agree with its terms. The hon. Member is probably aware that differential minimum rates of wages have been fixed for the smaller towns and rural districts as compared with the larger towns, by the trade boards dealing with retail bespoke dressmaking in England and in Scotland and for the retail branch of the hat, cap and millinery trade in Scotland. While I deeply deplore the unemployment in the trades mentioned, there is nothing to show that it is caused by the trade boards, and indeed it is no higher than unemployment in trades where no boards exist. I should add, that so far as the establishment of new boards is concerned, the fullest notice of intention to proceed will be given in order to enable all interested parties to make observations.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING TRADE DISPUTE.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can make any further statement concerning the dispute in the building trade; and whether any building contracts have already been cancelled and inquiries for work withdrawn on this account?

Mr. SHAW: With regard to the first part of the question, I understand that the meeting of the employers' and workers' organisations which was held on
Monday has been adjourned until to-day. I have no information as to the effect of the dispute on building contracts.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make a statement to the House immediately some decision is reached, having regard to the serious consequences that may happen to the housing schemes if a strike takes place?

Mr. SHAW: As far as the dispute in the building trade is concerned, yes, but the hon. Member well knows that his question is a double-barrelled one, and that one part of it should be addressed to another Department?

Sir K. WOOD: I will do that.

Major COLFOX: Will the right hon. Gentleman set up a Court of Inquiry before the dispute matures, or will he wait until the dispute has ripened and arrived?

Mr. SHAW: I must exercise my judgment as to when a Court of Inquiry is to be set up.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING.

Mr. BAKER: 43.
asked tie Prime Minister whether he is aware that, from 1913 to 1920, a well-known London retail store paid dividends amounting to 1,633.3 per cent. on its capital, in addition to the distribution, in 1920, of share bonuses equal to 900 per cent. of the capital; and whether he will have regard to this fact when considering the desirability of authorising an inquiry into the alleged profiteering of middlemen and retailers?

Mr. ALEXANDER: My attention has been called to the statement to which my hon. Friend refers. All the relevant information available will be taken into account in considering the matter mentioned in the second part of the question.

Mr. BAKER: In view of the agreement of the Opposition as to the necessity for such an inquiry, may I press the right hon. Gentleman to represent to the Prime Minister the importance of holding an inquiry at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. ALEXANDER: The Leader of the House has already indicated that the matter is being considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED WAR DEBTS.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, now that the Reparation Commission have reported, he will consider calling a conference, which would include the United States of America, on inter-Allied war debts?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. Until conclusions have been reached in regard to the issues raised by the Reports of the Expert Committees, it would be entirely premature to adopt this proposal, and I must decline at this stage to link up these two distinct issues.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

ASSEMBLY (BRITISH DELEGATION).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in selecting the British delegation to the League of Nations Assembly, he intendeds to pursue the practice of his predecessors and include in the delegation members of parties other than his own, and also secure the appointment of a woman member?

The PRIME MINISTER: This matter will be considered in due course.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman still hopeful that he may be able to attend himself?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not care to look so far ahead.

TREATY OF MUTUAL GUARANTEE.

Mr. J. HARRIS: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that at the meeting of the Council of the League of Nations, held in March last, the President was requested to approach all States which had not yet communicated their views upon the subject of the Treaty of Mutual Guarantee, that Great Britain is one of the States which have not yet expressed their views upon the draft Treaty, and that this action of the Council of the League was taken with the object of being able to present the collective views of the States members of the League at the Assembly meeting next September, it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to reply in time for this purpose?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — AERODROME (CARDINGTON).

Mr. WELLS: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have come to a decision with regard to airships; and if he is in a position to say when the aerodrome at Cardington is likely to be opened, and thus provide work for the unemployed in the neighbourhood?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to await the statement which I propose to make on this subject, after Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEVOLUTION.

Mr. AYLES: 53.
asked the Prime Minister if he can see his way to appoint a Committee of Inquiry into the question whether many domestic matters relating to England, Scotland and Wales, now dealt with by the Imperial Parliament, could be dealt with by subordinate bodies elected on a national basis?

The PRIME MINISTER: As announced on Friday, the Government are quite prepared to appoint such a Committee, and are causing inquiries to be made through the ordinary channels.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY AND TURKEY (TREATY).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the recent Treaty signed between Germany and Turkey?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is contrary to well-established practice to lay before Parliament treaties between third parties, save in very exceptional cases where such treaties gravely affect British interests which it is proper for Parliament to consider and discuss. The present Treaty does not fall within this category.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is this a secret Treaty or not?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, it is not. The question is whether we shall lay it on the Table. That is contrary to all precedent, provided that British interests are not specially involved or in any way involved in it. I say that they are not in this case.

Captain BERKELEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the signatories to this Treaty propose to register the Treaty at Geneva?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should put a question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — TANGIER AGREEMENT.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 59.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Tangier Agreement has been ratified by His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative, but His Majesty's ratification has not yet been actually deposited. This will be done as soon as the French and Spanish Governments are ready to do likewise.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRE-WAR PENSIONERS.

Mr. GWYNNE: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is intended to proceed with the pre-War Pensioners Bill; and, if so, when?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is that the preliminary Financial Resolution will be taken next week.

Mr. GWYNNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a strong feeling among pre-War pensioners that as the Government had time to give two days to the discussion of the free passes of Members, they should be able to give time for this Measure?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND BILL.

Mr. BUCHANAN: 61.
asked the Prime Minister if he is prepared to grant a day for the discussion of the Government of Scotland Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that it is not possible to afford a day for the continuance of this discussion, in view of the state of public business.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to understand that the statement made yesterday by the Deputy-Leader of the House is not to be implemented, that, if at all possible, time will be given, if not a whole day, at least part of a day, for the continuation
of the discussion on the Government of Scotland Bill, and that if possible a decision will be taken at the end of that day?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer which I have given covers that point. It is impossible to do it, in view of the state of public business.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Are we to understand that questions affecting Germany, the Ruhr and every other part of the world are to be given preference over questions affecting our own home conditions, and particularly Scotland?

Mr. STURROCK: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the speech made on Friday by the Secretary for Scotland caused great disappointment to Scottish Home Rulers?

Mr. MACLEAN: Is the House to understand from the reply that no further discussion upon the Government of Scotland Bill will take place this Session, and that it will have to go through the same procedure next year if some Scottish Member be fortunate enough to get a place in the Ballot?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAKERY TRADE (WAGES).

Mr. BARNES: 64.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the low rate of wages paid in the bread-baking industry; and, in view of the fact that many employers desire to pay better wages, but are largely prevented owing to the disorganised condition of the trade, will he consider the advisability of establishing a Trades Board for the bakery trade at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. SHAW: If my hon. Friend is in a position to send me specific information as to the present wages and organisation in this trade, I shall be glad to consider the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (BUILDING TRADE).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 67.
asked the Minister of Labour what was the reason for the abandonment of the scheme to train 50,000 ex-service men as dilutees in the skilled branches of the building trade; for how many of these trainees was employment
actually found; and whether the present Government have any scheme under contemplation for the training of ex-service men as building dilutees?

Mr. SHAW: With regard to the first part of the question, I understand that, as a result of the continued depression in the building industry, it was found impossible to absorb more than a small proportion of the applicants for training under the scheme, and that it was finally abandoned. I am not in a position to say how many trainees found employment. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave last week to the hon. Member for Harborough, a copy of which I am sending him.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he means about the continued depression of the building industry, considering that for years past there has been a great dearth of skilled men in the building trade?

Mr. SHAW: The scheme to which the hon. Member refers is the scheme of another Government, and I am giving him an answer, from the Department, which apparently that Government received.

Mr. MASTERMAN: In view of the official statement of the Minister of Health, that there is a very large demand row for skilled industry in the building trade, will my right hon. Friend see whether this scheme cannot be revived?

Sir PHILIP LLOYD-GREAME: Are we to understand that the Government have no scheme of their own?

Mr. SHAW: The hon. Member must understand exactly what I said. I said that this was the scheme of another Government and that the facts which I have given were the facts conveyed to that Government, and I cannot be responsible either for the scheme or for the facts that emerge from it.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentlemen aware that the then Minister of Health, the right hon. Member for North-West Camberwell (Dr. Macnamara), used his best endeavours to employ these ex-service men for this purpose, and that the trade unions would not allow them to be employed?

Mr. MASTERMAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to my question? Will he consider the revival of the scheme, regardless of what any previous Government has done?

Mr. SHAW: I will consider any point put by any hon. Member from any part of the House, but I cannot give any guarantees as to action.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMERCIAL AIRSHIP SERVICE.

GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he can make a statement of the Government's policy in connection with airships?

The PRIME MINISTER: After careful examination His Majesty's Government have decided to reject the scheme put forward by the Airship Guarantee Company—commonly known as the Burney scheme. In their opinion this scheme would have entailed the creation of a virtual monopoly, and contained a number of other features which are open to objection both on financial and technical grounds. At the same time, His Majesty's Government share the view of their predecessors that it is essential to carry into effect as early as possible a constructive programme of airship development.
They propose, accordingly, to authorise the Air Ministry to initiate forthwith a comprehensive programme of lighter-than-air research and experiment at Cardington, including full-scale experiments with one of the existing ships, which will be reconditioned for the purpose, and to undertake the early construction of a new airship of a capacity of 5,000,000 cubic feet.
Further, the Air Ministry will undertake the construction of a terminal and an intermediate base overseas, with the necessary facilities to enable these two ships to be operated with safety between England and India.
Simultaneously, the Air Ministry will give the Airship Guarantee Company the first offer of a contract for the construction of a second ship for commercial purposes. It is proposed that this contract shall include a clause under which the
constructors will be permitted to repurchase the ship from the Air Ministry at a reduced figure on completion of satisfactory flying trials, provided—

(1) that it is to be operated in connection with an approved British commercial airship service; and
(2) that it shall be available for use by the State as required.

By these means private initiative will be linked with lighter-than-air development from the start, and, in the event of success, the early inauguration of commercial airship services open to all firms likely to be interested will be facilitated. At the same time this second vessel will provide the nucleus of a reserve of personnel and material. Such a reserve will be essential if, as is hoped, airships prove capable of fulfilling certain important defensive functions—a development from which material economies in other forms of defence expenditure may ultimately result.
These proposals should enable two airships to be placed in commission in a shorter period than under the original scheme, since the Government and commercial vessels will be laid down simultaneously. They will, moreover, result in the maintenance of two separate airship manufacturing plants and other ground facilities on a scale which will admit of rapid expansion. Further, the valuable existing airship stations at Cardington and Pulham will remain State property, instead of passing into private hands, whilst ownership of the new bases to be constructed overseas will also be vested in the State.
As regards the financial aspect, under these proposals it will not be necessary to incur from the outset the very heavy commitments—amounting to a total sum of £4,800,000 over a period of 15 years—which would be involved by the original scheme.
A three years' programme only will be authorised in the first instance, and no decision will be necessary as to further development until this programme is nearing completion, when much fuller data will be available than at present. It is estimated that, allowing for the repurchase of the second ship by its constructors, the net expenditure involved in 1924–25, 1925,–26 and 1926–27 will not exceed £1,200,000.
A Supplementary Estimate in respect of the sum required for this service in the current year will be laid before the House at an early date. My Noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Air, will make a fuller statement on this subject on Wednesday, the 21st instant, in another place.

Sir S. HOARE: Is the Prime Minister aware, that the estimate of £4,000,000 which he has just quoted was for six airships and not for two and, therefore, the figures he has given are not comparable at all. Further, whilst obviously we cannot go into details to-day upon this question, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Supplementary Estimate to be taken as early as possible so that we shall have an opportunity of debating the statement which he has just made, without any delay.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think the latter part of the question is, perhaps, the more important, namely, that the Supplementary Estimate should be put down at an early date. It is quite obviously impossible to discuss this matter or in fact to give very much more information on this matter by question and answer. I should like to say, however, that it is perfectly true that the £4,800,000 was for the construction, as it was hoped, of six airships, all of which would belong to private companies at the end, whereas our scheme, I think, is much better financially than that. Still, that is a matter which will have to be raised on the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Is the Prime Minister aware that the main outline of the scheme he has just read to the House, with details in some instances, appeared in this morning's "Times," and will he explain to the House how these details could be disclosed and how Cabinet decisions could be disclosed to the "Times" without first being communicated to this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for raising this question. My attention has been drawn to this matter this forenoon. I regret it very much, and I am informed it did not come from the Air Ministry, but that it came from some of those with whom naturally we had to be in negotiation in order that we might explain, and have explained to us, the business foundation
of any scheme that might be introduced. I think it is a practice which is most reprehensible, and I regret very much that I can take no disciplinary action beyond the announcement I have just made to the House.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the Prime Minister say whether the amount he now suggests to the House is in addition to the Estimates already presented to Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is a Supplementary Estimate for quite a new scheme, mainly of commercial importance, but that point also can be debated on the Supplementary Estimate.

Captain BRASS: Will the Prime Minister state where this overseas base is to be situated?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would rather not. I am sure it is in the public interest that it should not be stated.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Can the Prime Minister take no steps as a result of the paragraph in to-day's "Times" which says that an order is to be given forthwith to the Burney group to proceed with the building of an airship capable of doing so-and-so, and having regard to the fact that these details have been disclosed to the Press, can he reconsider any decision which has been come to regarding the giving of the contract to any such group?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think I can be more emphatic than I have been in my expression of regret that this has been given away before it has been announced to the House. With reference to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we are absolutely free to enter into negotiations with any company or any group and, if that were advisable and wise, to open new negotiations. The Government are not tied in any way, and are not prevented by any agreement from doing so.

Viscount CURZON: As the Prime Minister has made a very serious allegation, presumably against the Burney group, can he give the House some indication as to how he makes such an allegation, and what foundation there is for it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have made no allegation against the Burney group. We have been in negotiation, and we have discussed the finance of the matter and the technicalities of the matter with various experts. I say that I was so gravely concerned with what I saw when my attention was drawn to this publication in the "Times" of this morning, that I asked whether steps had been taken to ascertain where the leakage came from, and the information I had was that it did not come from the Air Ministry or from our side, and that therefore it must have come from one or other of the persons with whom we have consulted in confidence about the scheme.

Mr. J. JONES: Will the Prime Minister consider the fact that one of the principal members of the firm included in this charge is a Member of this House?

Lieut.-Commander BURNEY: As this question has been raised I think it would be as well if I gave an explanation. I gave certain information to one of the Lobby correspondents last night, but I did not give any information other than that which had already been published in the "Westminster Gazette" nearly a week before and had already been published in the "Daily Mail" some three or four days before. I took up that matter with the Under-Secretary of State for Air and asked that some means should be taken to stop this leakage as it would appear to come either from myself or some other person who had been negotiating in the matter. That information had been given out to the Press, and I think hon. Members will find, if they read this article, that the only other information is information directly dealing with private work which is going on in a private concern and has nothing to do with the secrets of the Cabinet Committee. I think they will also find, if they read the "Daily News"—I think it is the "Daily News"—of the day after the publication in the "Westminster Gazette" that I was interviewed by reporters as to my views on that statement and as to whether it was correct or otherwise, and I refused to give any information because I had been a party to these Cabinet conferences. As I say, yesterday I only repeated what had already been published in the papers a week or more ago, and I did not think
in these circumstances that I was in any way abrogating a confidence. I would like to say further that I informed the Air Ministry this morning directly this was published, as I did not expect it to be published until to-morrow. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I think it is quite obvious that I should not have done it if I had thought that it would inconvenience the Prime Minister in his statement to-day. I informed the Secretary of State for Air this morning that I had given this information, and that I was sorry that certain portions had been put in which had already been published by the "Westminster Gazette," and which, therefore, would appear as having more authority than otherwise. I think that is an explanation which will satisfy the House.

Mr. PRINGLE: I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister as to whether it is not the practice of the "Times" newspaper not to publish anything which has appeared formerly in another English newspaper?

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Colonel GRETTON: I desire to raise a question of privilege. It will be within the recollection of yourself and of hon. Members that on a recent date the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) called attention to certain criticisms and aspersions on the conduct of the Chairman of Standing Committee A which appeared in the "Daily Herald" newspaper, and by the decision of this House the matter was referred to the Committee of Privileges to report to the House. I have to explain that, as the name of an hon. Member of this House is mentioned in the statement that I am about to read, I tried yesterday to find that hon. Member but failed to do so, and I hope that the House will absolve me from any delay because I have endeavoured to follow the invariable practice, when an hon. Member's name is raised, that he should receive notice of what is impending. The paragraph to which I desire to draw your attention and the attention of the House appeared in the "Daily Herald" of yesterday, Tuesday, 13th of this month, on page 2, and in the 4th column. It is there stated:
If the editor is to be arraigned for alleged breach of privilege, and the only
point of privilege which can possibly arise is the comment on the conduct of the Chairman of the Committee, then my colleagues and I should also be arraigned. This was the declaration made to the 'Daily Herald' last night by Mr. Mardy Jones, leader of the Labour group on the Standing Committee.
It goes on:
During the past week-end most Labour Members of the Committee have been criticising in the country the conduct of the Chairman as well as the tactics of the Tory obstructionists. The 'Daily Herald' has merely repeated the criticisms which we have levelled against the Chairman during the Committee's proceedings. There is not the slightest doubt that the Tory obstructionists have been allowed to submit frivolous amendments scribbled during the proceedings. I have repeatedly protested against the ruling of the Chairman, and I am prepared to repeat my criticism either inside or outside the House of Commons.
The only matter which involves privilege is the aspersion in that statement cast upon the conduct of the Chairman of Standing Committee A. The aspersions have already been brought to the attention of the House. I submit that it is a serious breach of privilege that a Member should again raise a question which is now, in fact, sub judice, and that such a comment should appear in a public newspaper. I submit that the statement in this paragraph should also be brought to the notice of the Committee of Privileges and form part of the subject which the House has directed it to investigate. I do not know that it will be necessary for me to move any Motion. You, Sir, may hold it sufficient that the matter has now been raised on the Floor of the House. In conclusion, I would only submit that, if any hon. Member has a criticism or a grievance against the conduct of any Chairman of Committees, the proper place to raise that grievance and to state it is in the House itself, and not to a public newspaper outside.

Mr. SPEAKER: This gives me the opportunity of saying that the statement I made on Monday last with reference to myself applies equally to the Chairman of any Committee of the House. There are means provided in our Rules, if the necessity really arise, for calling in question the conduct of the Speaker, or the Chairman of the Whole House or of a Standing Committee. Hon. Members, I am sure, will see, especially after a recent incident, that it is essential that that procedure should be observed.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: When an hon. Member comes here he comes presumably prepared to accept the rules under which the House works. With regard to the particular question, if the hon. and gallant Member had asked leave to move on this occasion, I should have had to rule him out of order on two points: First, on a matter of time; and, secondly, on the fact that the paper which has been presented to me contains no sufficient evidence on which to base a Motion. I am glad that the hon. and gallant Member did not ask to proceed with a Motion, and I think that what I have said will be sufficient to meet the particular case, especially as the main matter has been, by the consent of the Whole House, referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. MARDY JONES: With regard to this matter, if I may with your permission and the permission of the House, I would like to correct one statement made by the hon. and gallant Member who has raised the question to-day. He said that I made this statement in the interview to the "Daily Herald" after the proceedings had been started against the "Daily Herald" in this House. That is not so. It was last Monday evening that I gave the interview complained of, and that was prior to the incident in this House yesterday. Therefore, it was not sub judice when I made the statement.

Mr. SPEAKER: I felt sure that that was the case, and I am glad that the hon. Member has made that statement. There is no question now before the House. I have declined, on the ground of time, to take the question on a Motion for Privilege, and therefore no question can now arise.

Mr. HOPE: I take it that the Committee of Privileges will be competent to inquire into and report on this particular question as part of, and arising out of, the question submitted to them.

Mr. SPEAKER: On that point, I must not interfere with the duties of the Chairman of that Committee.

Mr. PRINGLE: On a point of Order. Has not the Committee of Privileges been appointed to deal specifically with the breach of privilege alleged to have been
committed by the "Daily Herald," and unless the House amends the reference to the Committee it will not be competent for the Committee to deal with the matter which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised to-day?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have said that it is a matter of interpretation for the Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. DICKSON: As a member of the Committee upstairs I wish for your guidance on a point with regard to your ruling. It is whether your ruling governs the comment of any member of that Committee who may be speaking in the country and may express an opinion about the Chairman.

Mr. SPEAKER: Yes, I think that ought not to be done. Members ought not to criticise the conduct of a Chairman unless in the manner provided by the Rules of the House.

Mr. DICKSON: Prior to the question being raised in the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, at any time.

Mr MACLEAN: When the matter was raised in this House by the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), I raised a point with regard to a similar attempt that I made on a previous occasion to raise a question of privilege, and you asked me to send you on the reference as you did not remember it. I have done so, and I think that you will have received the communication that I forwarded to you. I wish to repeat the question that I then put. Why is it that this trifling question should be considered of such importance as to warrant a Committee of Privileges being set up when the question of impugning the honesty of a Cabinet Minister in this House was not considered to be of sufficient importance to set up a Committee of Privileges?

Mr. SPEAKER: I have looked up the reference which the hon. Member was good enough to give me, and I find that on that occasion, in the month of May, 1921, I gave to him my reasons for not accepting the Motion which he proffered. I cannot now repeat them, but I hold entirely by what I said on that occasion.

Mr. W. THORNE: On this question, I would like to ask—

Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: To prevent any misapprehension arising, or possible confusion between answers to different questions, may I ask, in regard to the conduct of Members of the House as distinguished from any outsiders, whether I did not understand you to rule that, whether any question of privilege had been raised or not, the only place where it was proper for Members of the House to challenge the conduct of the Speaker or the Chairman of the Committee was on the Floor of the House in appropriate form, and that it would be improper for any Member of the House to challenge—I am asking whether this was your ruling—the ruling of the Chair in the House or upstairs, or anywhere except on the Floor of the House in that form?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that the right hon. Member's statement can be accepted in toto with this addition: challenging the integrity or impartiality of the Chair or of any Chairman. Hon. Members frequently put questions to me here on points of Order after a decision, and within limits I listen to them. It cannot quite be said that no question of a ruling can be raised on the Floor of this House. Otherwise I agree.

Mr. LANSBURY: If the Committee is set up to investigate this question, will the Report of that Committee be open to discussion in the House afterwards?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Report will be presented to the House. The second part is a question for the Leader of the House.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Leader of the House whether there will be an opportunity? [HON. MEMBERS: "It has been promised!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: That question arose yesterday, and it does not now arise. There is no Question before the House, and we cannot argue this matter further.

VIVISECTION (PREVENTION OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the payment out of public funds of moneys for experiments on living animals.
The object of the Bill is to prevent the spending of public money on the subsidising of vivisection experiments. In no way does the Bill interfere with experiments being carried on by private experimenters under licence, as at present, but a large sum of money is being spent by the Ministry of Health in subsidising these experiments. Last year we spent approximately, as far as I can gather, £130,000, which I think is much too large a sum, and objectionable for many reasons. I do not know exactly what the figures are for this year, as I have been unable to get them, but we may take it that they will be approximately the same unless this Bill becomes law. During the same time we are spending, for England alone, not counting Scotland and Wales, £70,000 less this year on providing milk for expectant mothers and on child welfare under the special powers of the Ministry of Health, and I put it to the House that it would be much more valuable if this money could be spent on providing milk for expectant mothers and in helping creches in poor districts, and for other useful purposes, which everyone admits are good, while the utility of these experiments is doubtful.
It might be said, against the Bill, that vivisection experiments have been a great cause of discoveries in the medical world, and that I myself have recently benefited by such discoveries. As a matter of fact, that is not so. I underwent recently a very severe operation—I am now anticipating a most obvious line of criticism—and was attended by a very skilful surgeon, who got his skill by hundreds of experiments on human beings like myself. That is where his skill came from, and not by practising on living animals. I do not propose in any way to interfere with bacteriological experiments or with ordinary medical research experiments; I wish only to prevent money being spent on this particular type of experiment. I introduced the same Bill on 10th May, 1922, and a number of hon. and right hon. Members now in the House, drawn from all parties, supported it. Many prominent members of the Conservative party voted for the Bill, and of the members of the Labour party then in the House, practically the whole strength went into the Lobby for the Bill, including the present Secretary for Scotland, the Lord Privy Seal, the Home Secretary, the Minister of
Labour, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade, and the Under-Secretary for Education. The Minister of Health was not then in the House, although I think I could have counted upon him if he had been here. The Prime Minister was not here either, and I have not sounded him on the matter, but 102 Members voted for the Bill, and I think, at any rate, we ought to give the Bill the opportunity of being brought in and taking its chance of further progress. I think I have said enough to show that it is a good Bill. It is very simple, consisting of only four Clauses, of which one is the citation Clause and one is concerned with the definition of public money. The first Clause simply says that public money shall not be used or applied for the purposes of vivisection experiments, and the other Clauses are the ordinary formal Clauses. The Bill could not be simpler, and I think its object is good.

Dr. SPERO: May I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the very eloquent way in which he has pleaded the anti-vivisectionist case? I would suggest, however, that if he could have substantiated any of his claims by either reasons or facts, he would not have had to rely solely upon eloquence in introducing the Bill. I am reminded of the words of Goethe, that nothing is so terrible as active ignorance. I would first like to try to dispel the erroneous idea that some hon. Members have of the way in which medical men conduct experiments. Let me assure the House that we do not put on the robes of the Klu Klux Klan and steal out in the early hours of the morning to capture a vocal tom-cat, and then bring him into our laboratories and ruthlessly and callously cut off his head. We do not do anything of the kind. Our laboratories are open to all. They are open to Government inspectors, and it is here that part of the money is spent. They are also open to any anti-vivisectionists who may care to see how our experiments are conducted. I would like to submit that more money rather than less should be spent on animal experiments. In every experiment upon an
animal, that animal is under an anæsthetic, and, therefore, it does not feel any pain whatever.
We will take some of the more common diseases, diabetes, for example. Insulin, the great modern cure, is a preparation of one of the internal secreting glands. All makes of insulin must be treated on rabbits before they can be given to human beings. Without experiments, therefore, on animals, I would say that there would be a number of diabetic patients who would not be alive to-day. Ask any diabetic person if these experiments are not justifiable. Adrenalin, which is used for hæmorrhage pituitary during childbirth, and a number of other preparations, are all of animal extraction. I will go as far as to suggest that no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend will, in years to come, give up some of his anti-vivisectionist ideas and resort to the rejuvenating properties of monkey glands. Again, there are some drugs which must be standardised before they are safe for human use, and standardisation can only first of all be carried out on animals. The best known drug in this category is Salvarsen, which is used in the treatment of syphilis. If you deny us the standardisation, we shall be unable to treat with safety this terrible disease.
Then, again, the national milk supply is kept free from the tubercular bacilli, namely, the germs of consumption, by inoculating guinea-pigs with the suspected milk. Are we going to prevent the Government from carrying out these measures in order to give to the people tubercular free milk? Again, I am sure the hon. Members above thy Gangway will know how useful canaries and white mice are to safeguard the lives of our miners. They have had to be used, and are we going to withdraw this safety valve from our miners? Surely their job is dangerous enough already. Again, we are experimenting on rats day after day in order to try to find a cure for cancer. We have to do it; humanity demands it. May I remind the House of the great and self-sacrificing work carried on by research workers? If you deny them the right to experiment on the lower animals in order to benefit mankind, they will be forced, from the highest of motives, to experiment upon themselves. They have done so in the past—and hon. Members know the number of martyrs to science—and
they will do it again in the future, but I would suggest that to compel them to do it again is not exactly the spirit in which this enlightened House should acknowledge their great and noble and self-sacrificing work.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Mr. Foot, Mr. Scrymgeour, Mr. Trevelyan Thomson, Mr. Ayles, Mr. Mills, Rear-Admiral Sueter, Mr. Wignall, Sir Philip Richardson, and Mr. Hogge.

VIVISECTION (PREVENTION OF PUBLIC EXPENDITURE) BILL,

"to prevent the payment out of public funds of moneys for experiments on living animals," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 129.]

INDICTABLE OFFENCES (REGULATION OF REPORTS).

Captain BERKELEY: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the publication of reports in cases of indictable offences.
The purpose of the Bill which I am seeking leave to introduce is to remedy a very serious and growing evil. Hon. Members will observe that nowadays, in every serious case of crime, most noticeably in cases of murder, it has become a common practice among the more widely read journals of the Press to make what is called a feature of the crime, and to enter into a kind of competition with each other in the sensationalism which they present to their readers. This is by no means confined to reports of the various preliminary inquiries, but it goes to the extent of publishing interviews with prospective witnesses, and minute descriptions of the conduct of the accused before and during the inquiry. It extends to publishing accounts of the life story of the victim, either contributed directly in the form of interviews with the friends of the victim, or pieced together very skilfully by writers of the Press, the whole thing being profusely illustrated by photographs and sketches. Of course, one has to recognise that it is not possible by legislation to
deal with all these activities, and it would probably only be feasible to curtail some of them by some form of agreement among the writers in the Press themselves.
In that connection, I would venture very deferentially to suggest that it might be a very appropriate matter for the Institute of Journalists and the Newspaper Proprietors' Association to see whether they could not come to some agreement, so as to make it a canon of good journalism not to fill the papers with this sensational writing. In regard to the Bill I am asking the House to give me leave to introduce to-day, however, this matter must be looked at from the point of view of its effect upon the accused person. It is not merely a matter of public taste, though, of course, that is a matter of considerable interest and has considerable bearing on the question, but it is a matter of protecting, quite literally, the interest of the accused person in a fair trial. The Bill is a Bill to regulate the publication of reports in cases of indictable offences. I want to take an illustration from what has recently occurred. Take the publicity given to what is known as the Eastbourne Case.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the hon and gallant Gentleman referring to the present case?

Captain BERKELEY: Yes.

Sir K. WOOD: Then I venture to suggest the hon. and gallant Member is not carrying out his own ideas, if he is going to comment on a case now before the Courts.

Captain BERKELEY: If the hon. Member will allow me to complete my sentence, I was not going to refer to the proceedings, but to ask whether the kind of wide publicity in that case is not likely to create prejudice? That was all I was going to say, and I venture to suggest that it is perfectly in order. What I was about to submit was that, in view of the publicity which, we all know, has taken place, it is virtually impossible for a juryman in a trial to come to his duties without some preconceived opinion on the merits of the case, and I submit that it is entirely contrary to the spirit of the administration of the criminal law, because it, obviously, must tend to undermine the presumption of innocence. The
Bill I am proposing to introduce to remedy this does not create a new principle of law, but merely seeks to simplify and to extend the existing law. Hon. Members of the House who are members of the legal profession will know that anything written or published calculated to prejudice the defence, or pervert the course of justice, is a contempt of Court, and the accused has a remedy in a motion to commit the writer or the publisher. But that is a proceeding which, in my humble judgment, is both more elaborate and more expensive than it ought to be, or need be. The accused is not always in a financial position to take steps to engage solicitors, brief counsel, and make an application to the High Court for a rule or an order. It is too costly for the average prisoner. Of course, there is also the possibility that in cases where the Crown considers that a substantial interference with the course of justice is about to take place, the Crown may proceed by intervention or indictment; but what is far more desirable, is far less the punishment of the writer or publisher for writing of publishing such articles, than the prevention of such articles being written at all, and it is for that purpose I am introducing this Bill.
The aim of the Bill, which is very short, is to make the whole business easier and simpler, and the proposal is to make it an offence, punishable, on summary conviction, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding £100, or both, and for a second offence six months and/or a fine of £250, in relation to any preliminary inquiry arising out of an indictable offence for publishing matter calculated to prejudice the accused in his defence on trial, or which actually does prejudice the accused. I observe that my hon. and learned Friend on my left regards it as a matter for laughter that this state of affairs should be permissible.

Mr. HEMMERDErose—

Captain BERKELEY: I am about to complete my sentence.

Mr. HEMMERDE: The hon. and gallant Member has no right to misrepresent me.

Captain BERKELEY: The hon. Member laughs at my proposal. The whole purpose is to create a procedure by which an accused person, if he considers that his fair trial is being prejudiced by the reports
that are appearing in the papers, may be able, speedily and inexpensively, to invoke the Courts of the country in order to put a stop to articles of that kind. I am also proposing that the Bill should contain a Clause safeguarding the rights of the Press, which must be safeguarded, to publish impartial reports of the proceedings of these inquiries, but making it quite clear that it is illegal to do the kind of thing that has occurred in the Press in the reporting of the preliminary inquiry of the Byfleet case, where certain passages of the evidence have been set out in special black type, and which could quite easily prejudice the accused very seriously. In these circumstances, I venture to hope the House will allow me to introduce this Bill.

Sir K. WOOD: I am sure the object which my hon. and gallant Friend has in view will be shared generally by Members in this House. I think, even with the brief explanation of the matter, there must arise in the minds of many Members the great difficulty with which it is confronted, and of the machinery which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has devised in order to attain his object. I, as I dare say many hon. Members, approach this proposition, if possible, with a view of preserving, in the first place, the liberty of the Press, and, in the second place to safeguard any accused person and protect his rights, but my hon. and gallant Friend knows full well that there is already very adequate provision made for the safety and the rights of accused people in this country, and I have heard no demand made by any person to justify my hon. and gallant Friend bringing forward this Bill this afternoon. Any accused person has a very summary method of getting what my hon. and gallant Friend, apparently, wants to attain by this Bill. He can apply straight away to a judge. The cost is comparatively inexpensive. I suppose the amount of out-of-pocket fees, and whatever one has to give to counsel and solicitor, would not exceed a five-pound or ten-pound note, and I may say that in all these cases, to which, I think, my hon. and gallant Friend has rather unwisely referred at the present time, there is little difficulty on the ground of expense or any matter of that kind.
Moreover, as I am reminded, it would be no cheaper at all to apply to a Court
of Summary Jurisdiction, and it opens a very grave objection, because while I am prepared that a High Court Judge should decide the issue, on the one hand, of the liberty of the Press, and, on the other, the rights of an accussed person, I doubt very much whether it is desirable that that right should be given to every police magistrate or bench of justices up and down the country. I can conceive very grave issues arising which would, probably, make greater difficulties than my hon. and gallant Friend contemplates. I think, therefore, he would be very well advised to leave the matter, in the first place, to public opinion, and, in the second place, to the powers already in existence. I can say in the presence of the Attorney-General, as I could in the presence of the late Attorney-General, who was here a minute ago, that if the Grown in any of these cases thought that justice was not being done to an accused person, and that he was unable to seek his rights and obtain justice on the ground of lack of means, they would very speedily see that action was taken on his behalf. My objection to this Bill is not, of course, to any of the ideals which my hon. and gallant Friend has, but simply because I think it would be a great mistake to allow issues of this kind to be dealt with by small courts up and down the country.
I hope, therefore, in these circumstances, my hon. and gallant Friend,

having made his point this afternoon, will not press the matter further, but will leave the question where it is. I may say it is going to be dealt with in another Bill which will shortly be before this House, when we can discuss it more adequately than we can on a brief occasion like this. Consequently, I hope my hon. Friend will see his way not to press the matter further on this occasion.

Captain BERKELEY: Will the hon. Gentleman state what is the Bill which he says is to be introduced?

Sir K. WOOD: It is a Bill dealing with reports of cases of this kind, introduced by the hon. Member for the Aston Division of Birmingham (Sir E. Cecil). There is also another Bill, a Government Measure, which has been introduced by the Attorney-General, dealing with the question of photographs being taken of accused people entering and leaving Court, as to which there might be something to be said. I think, having regard to these two Measures, both of which will be shortly before the House—certainly the Government Bill—I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman not to press the matter further.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the publication of reports in cases of indictable offences.

The House divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 112.

Division No. 74.]
AYES.
[4.45 p.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Compton, Joseph
Gosling, Harry


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Cope, Major William
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)


Alstead, R.
Crittall, V. G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Ammon, Charles George
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Groves, T.


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Grundy, T. W.


Baker, Walter
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hacking Captain Douglas H.


Barclay, R. Noton
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Barnes, A.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S)
Harbord, Arthur


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Doyle, Sir N. Grattan
Hardie, George D.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Duckworth, John
Harmsworth, Hon E. C. (Kent)


Batey, Joseph
Dukes, C.
Harris, John (Hackney, North)


Betterton, Henry B.
Duncan, C.
Harris, Percy A.


Black, J. W.
Dunn, J. Freeman
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Briant, Frank
Dunnico, H.
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Haycock, A. W.


Broad, F. A.
Egan, W. H.
Hayday, Arthur


Bromfield, William
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Henderson, Rt. Hon A. (Burnley)


Buckie, J.
Falconer, J.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Foot, Isaac
Hindle, F.


Cape, Thomas
Franklin, L. B.
Hirst, G. H.


Charleton, H. C.
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Hoffman, P. C.


Climie, R.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gillett, George M.
Isaacs, G. A.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Nixon, H.
Stanley, Lord


Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Oliver, George Harold
Stranger, Innes Harold


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Sullivan, J.


Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Owen, Major G.
Tattersall, J. L.


Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Paling, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Palmer, E. T.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell-(Croydon, S.)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Pease, William Edwin
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Perry, S. F.
Thurtle, E.


Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tillett, Benjamin


Kennedy, T.
Potts, John S.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Toole, J.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Raffety, F. W.
Tout, W. J.


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Raine, W.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Kirkwood, D.
Rathbone, Hugh R.
Turner, Ben


Lamb, J. Q.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper
Turner-Samuels, M.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Raynes, W. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Lansbury, George
Rees, Sir Beddoe
Viant, S. P.


Laverack, F. J.
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Law, A.
Rendall, A.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Lawson, John James
Richards, R.
Warne, G. H.


Lee, F.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Lessing, E.
Ritson, J.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Lumley, L. R.
Robertson, T. A.
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Lunn, William
Romerll, H. G.
Weir, L. M.


McEntee, V. L.
Rose, Frank H.
Wells, S. R.


Mackinder, W.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Westwood, J.


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Royce, William Stapleton
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Royle, C.
Whiteley, W.


Maden, H.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Wignall, James


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Marks, Sir George Croydon
Scrymgeour, E.
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Marley, James
Sexton, James
Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)


Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Shepperson, E. W.
Williams, Maj. A. S. (Kent, Sevenoaks)


Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Sherwood, George Henry
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Millar, J. D.
Shinwell, Emanuel
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Mills, J. E.
Simon, E. D. (Manchester, Withington)
Windsor, Walter


Morel, E. D.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Smillie, Robert
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Wintringham, Margaret


Morse, W. E.
Snell, Harry
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Mosley, Oswald
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Wright, W.


Muir, John W.
Spence, R.
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Muir, Ramsay (Rochdale)
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)



Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Spoor, B. G.
Captain Berkeley and Major


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Stamford, T. W.
Moulton.


NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Lowth, T.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas, C.)
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Apsley, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Morris, R. H.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Naylor, T. E.


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Gretton, Colonel John
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Guest, Dr. L. Haden (Southwark, N.)
O'Neill, John Joseph


Bonwick, A.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Parry, Thomas Henry


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Purcell, A. A.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Harney, E. A.
Raffan, P. W.


Brass, Captain W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rankin, James S.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Rea, W. Russell


Buchanan, G.
Hemmerde, E. G.
Remnant, Sir James


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Burman, J. B.
Hobhouse, A. L.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North.)
Savery, S. S.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Scurr, John


Chapman, Sir S.
Jephcott, A. R.
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Sitch, Charles H.


Darbishire, C. W.
Keens, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leach, W.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Dickie, Captain J. P.
Linfield, F. C.
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)


Dixey, A. C.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Elveden, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Steel, Samuel Strang




Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Weston, John Wakefield
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Sturrock, J. Leng
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.



Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Wilson, Sir Charles H. (Leeds, Central)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sutcliffe, T.
Winfrey, Sir Richard
Sir Kingsley Wood and Sir Ellis


Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wise, Sir Fredric
Hume-Williams.


Turton, Edmund Russborough




Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Captain Berkeley, Major Fletcher Moulton, Mr. Hope Simpson, Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy, Captain Viscount Curzon, and Mr. John Harris.

INDICTABLE OFFENCES (REGULATION OF REPORTS) BILL,

"to regulate the publication of reports in cases of indictable offences," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

RENT RESTRICTIONS BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.

Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.

Special Report brought up, and read.

Report and Special Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

LIQUOR TRAFFIC LOCAL OPTION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL,

"to promote temperance by conferring on the electors in prescribed areas control over the grant and renewal of licences; by amending the Law relating to clubs; and for other purposes incidental thereto," presented by Mr. LEIF JONES; supported by Mr. Foot, Mr. Thomas Johnston, Mr. Millar, Mr. Morris, Mr. Raffan, and Mrs. Wintringham; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 22nd May, and to be printed. [Bill 128.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Trade Facilities Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law with respect to the reference to trade disputes to courts of inquiry established under Part II of the Industrial Courts Act, 1919." [Industrial Courts Amendment Bill [Lords].

Orders of the Day — COUNTY COURTS [SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of all salaries, allowances, and other sums which, under any Act of the present Session to amend the Law relating to officers of County Courts in England and of district registries of the High Court in England, and to make further provision with respect to such County Courts and proceedings therein, and for purposes connected therewith, are payable to registrars, high bailiffs, assistant registrars, clerks, bailiffs, ushers, or messengers of County Courts, to the registrars and clerks of district registries of the High Court, and to certain officers in the Department of the Lord Chancellor."—[King's Recommendations signified.]

5.0 P.M.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): This is a matter which was before the House as recently as last week. I cannot myself think that it would be the wish of the Committee that I should take very much time in discussing over again what in substance was, as a matter of fact, considered on that occasion. The Second Reading was passed without a Division, but there were certain suggestions made from this and the other side of the House in regard to certain Amendments. Perhaps I may briefly state what the Bill is designed to effect. It really falls into two parts. The one is to regulate the position and terms of the employment of the Registrars of County Courts; and the other is to benefit, and benefit very substantially, the position of the inferior officials in the Courts who now are grossly underpaid and whose terms of employment are onerous and severe. There is additional provision for pensions for these people in the sense that they shall in future be made permanent civil servants. The reason why this Resolution is necessary is, as the Committee will see, that Clause 9 requires a Financial Resolution to authorise the expenditure. It might, perhaps, be desirable that I should give some sort of idea of the amount of money which this Bill is likely to involve. Under the first
part of the Bill, which deals with the superior officials, the appointment registrars, and other matters of that sort, it is hoped that there will be a substantial economy, amounting to something like £25,000. With regard to the second part, which relates to the minor officials whom it is intended to benefit under the Bill, there will be an expenditure in the first year of something like £79,000. That sum is represented almost exactly to the extent of one-half by the payment of immediate gratuities, in the circumstances which I explained last week, to men who are now long past their work, who ought to have been put on a pension system, and whom it is intended to place on a system under which they will receive gratuities of something in the nature of one or two years' pay.
I do not want to reiterate the fact that the Bill is one which is long overdue, nor the fact that it is a Bill which is almost passionately desired, at least, by the minor officials of whom I am speaking, but I desire to urge upon the Committee the fact that this has been a matter of arrangement. There are four distinct parties concerned in the arrangement There is, first of all, the Treasury, who have not been easy to please in the matter of providing the necessary money. Then there is the Lord Chancellor's Department, who have been responsible for the negotiations; and there are two associations, one representing the registrars, and the other representing the County Court clerks and other officials whom I have described as the minor officials. That agreement has been made between all of these four parties, and, the Government having been in negotiation with these four different classes of people, and an agreement having been arrived at, it is impossible to alter that agreement, at any rate to-day. Although, as I have already stated, the grievance of these clerks and minor officials has been one of the outstanding features of the negotiations, and they have shown great loyalty in the face of continual struggles, this Bill not having been introduced until years after it became necessary, owing to difficulties caused by lack of Parliamentary time, one realises that it is always possible for one individual, or more than one, to approach an individual Member of the House and say, "Cannot I get a little more"? My
answer to that is that, unless we can get this through on the scheme which has been agreed, it probably cannot be got through at all. Therefore, I urge individual Members who may have been approached by individual clerks, or individual bailiffs, or individual registrars, if any cases of that kind have occurred, to accept it from me that this arrangement has been agreed upon.
I see in his place the late Attorney-General, who was originally in charge of this Bill, and I feel fairly confident—indeed, I am quite confident—that he will bear out what I have said as to the great difficulty of the matter, and the great debt which all people who will benefit really owe to those who conducted the negotiations. Inasmuch as my right hon. Friend made some observations on the Second Reading in which, I think, he described either himself or myself as a layer of cuckoo's eggs, may I say at once that I recognise to the full that the Bill is not my Bill, but is the Bill of my predecessors? I claim no merit in regard to the Bill at all. The negotiations have been conducted entirely by the people whom I have mentioned, very difficult agreements were made, and the only merit that I think we can claim is that we have been able to afford Parliamentary time for the introduction of the Bill. Subject to that, I trust that there will be very little discussion on this Resolution, and I would again urge upon the attention of Members in all parts of the Committee that this matter is based upon an agreement, which I trust they will not endeavour to alter.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I am sure that none of us desires in any way to disturb the arrangement that has been made, but I should like to make one or two observations upon a matter to which the Attorney-General has just referred, and, perhaps, to put one or two questions to him. In the first place, I hope he will not in any way belittle the necessity of bringing Financial Resolutions before the House. He seemed to me rather to think, though perhaps I may be wrong, that, because he gave a very excellent explanation on the Second Reading of the Bill, and that that occurred only a few days ago, therefore we might treat this matter as a purely formal matter to-day, and not worry any more about it. I see the Lord Privy Seal in this place, and I know he will confirm me at any rate in this, though
not, perhaps, in much else in regard to current matters, that this is a very necessary part of our procedure, and is the only time that the House has when it can properly review and look into the financial commitments so far as we are concerned. Therefore, I hope that the Attorney-General will not do or say anything which would materially alter or endeavour to minimise the value of this stage in the House of Commons.
I do not know whether he or the Lord Privy Seal can say why the practice has not been continued in connection with this Bill which I think has operated in connection with a good many others, namely, that we should have a short financial statement ready and available for us, from which we can see the exact financial commitments. I remember that Sir Donald Maclean, when he was in the House, urged this upon the Government on every occasion, and there was a very valuable House of Commons reform, namely, that, when these Financial Resolutions were placed before the House, we should have at the same time a White Paper setting out exactly the financial arrangements and the sum of money that the House was voting. I hope the Lord Privy Seal will look into that in this connection, and also in connection with any other Bills that may be brought forward. It is most useful to Members of the House, but it has not been provided in connection with this Bill. I hope that, either on this or on some other occasion, we may have a statement on behalf of the Government that at any rate that practice is going to be continued, because it is in the public interest, whatever party may be in power or in Opposition.
It is perfectly true, as the Attorney-General has said, that the scheme in connection with this County Courts Bill, upon which this Money Resolution is based, has been arrived at by agreement between the four parties to whom he has referred; and none of us, I feel sure, would desire to disturb that arrangement. I do feel bound, however, to say this afternoon, as it is the only opportunity we shall have, that there are a a number of old servants in our County Courts who are not really getting a very generous contribution under this arrangement. The Attorney-General referred to them, and I think he told the House that some of the older of them, who have been
employed in our County Courts up and down the country for 30 or 40 years, are only going to get practically a bonus of one or two years' pay. I frankly admit the difficulties, in any scheme, of providing for these older men, especially when the Attorney-General tells us that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very difficult in regard to providing pensions even for the present salaried staffs of our County Courts. That is a matter which we may notice on another occasion, but I am wondering whether it is possible for the Treasury now, even at the last moment, to make some further provision for these old servants.
I think more justice ought to be done to them, and my chief object, in making these few observations, was to put this final question to the Attorney-General, as to whether, even now, something further could not be done for those who, as he knows, have really served the State very well. There is no need to detail their services and the laborious work they have done in their particular duties, which do not bring them very much to the public notice. They have done very useful work in Courts which are becoming increasingly busier, and which are increasingly affecting more often and more frequently the lives of the people of this country. Our County Courts are to-day, I believe, conducting some 80 or 90 per cent. of the litigation of this country, and they are doing it excellently. We very rarely hear criticisms of their work or of the conduct of the officials, or even observations on the County Court Judges themselves. Therefore, I do think there is a strong case for these men, and I hope the Attorney-General will consider it.
There is an omission from this Resolution, which I suppose is a necessary omission, because provision is not made for it in the Bill. The Attorney-General will remember that on the Second Reading a good many right hon. and hon. Members, including, I think, the ex-Attorney-General, made a plea that something should be done for the County Court Judges of the country. It is a pity that no provision has been made for them in this Resolution. There, again, I hope the Attorney-General may be able to say something this afternoon as to whether he can hold out any hope that
something further may be going to be done in this direction. It is a very important public question, because it is very necessary, having regard to the amount of business which the County Courts are doing, and the intimate way in which their decisions affect the life of the humbler people of the community, that we should attract the best possible men we can to become County Court Judges. I venture to say that, at the salary which they are now receiving, namely, £1,500 a year, you will not attract from the Bar to-day the best men that you can get, and that is what we ought to aim at. In days gone by, when £1,500 a year was decided upon, it was undoubtedly at a certain stage in the life of even an eminent member of the Bar an attraction to become a County Court Judge, and to be, to a certain extent, relieved from the daily anxieties and arduous duties of a busy profession; but I venture to say that you will attract very few men in the future by a salary of that nature. I dare say Cabinet Ministers can tell the Committee what a small sum even £5,000 a year is to-day, and when yon come down to £1,500 a year, and expect the best members of the profession to accept these posts, I am sure there will be an increasing difficulty. Therefore, I hope the Attorney-General may be able to hold out some prospect that some further consideration may be given to what I think is a very necessary and urgent matter.
Apart from these questions which I have ventured to put—not by any means with a view to criticising this arrangement or the satisfactory solution which has been come to—I congratulate whoever has been concerned in this arrangement, whether it be the present Attorney-General or the ex-Attorney-General—they can share the credit between them. I am, at any rate, authorised to say for a very large number of people who are concerned, that they welcome the rather belated attention that has been given to this matter; and we hope that, by means of the scheme that has now been arranged, not only in connection with the Registrars but in connection with the humbler officers of the Courts, they will have much better financial arrangements made for them, and that in that way we shall attract a still better type of man to perform what are really very arduous and difficult duties. While supporting the Resolution, I venture to express the
hope that we may have some assurance from the Attorney-General on the points I have mentioned.

Mr. SEXTON: Like the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, I have no desire to interfere with any arrangement that has been made. I think, however, that the point which I desire to raise is really a Committee point, which will not interfere with any arrangement. It is in connection with those of these officers who have served for 30 or 40 years, and have some years of vigorous service still to come. These men will automatically go on to civil pensions, but no regard whatever is given to their past years of service, not one year of which will count in regard to this pension. Some of them may only have a few years to go, but, in view of the fact that, particularly in the lower classes, such as the bailiffs, they are performing duties of a rather distasteful character, in the capacity of the Shylock of a system of private enterprise, and are not very well received wherever they go, I suggest to the Attorney-General that some consideration should be given as regards some of the time that has been served by these men, who have, one might almost say, toiled in the service of the County Courts, and that some part of that time should be taken into consideration for superannuation benefit. I hope that in Committee, if I happen to be on the Committee, I may have an opportunity of moving an Amendment to that effect.

Sir DOUGLAS HOGG: I do not rise to delay the Committee for more than a moment or two, and I certainly do not desire to say anything which might in any way impede or imperil the passage of this Resolution or of the Bill to which it is designed to give effect. I welcome the attitude of the Government in affording time for a Measure in which I personally, as I think the Attorney-General knows, have taken a very great interest, and which, as he has very well said, does tardy justice to a very deserving class of men. I should like, however, if I may, to reinforce the suggestion that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), that it would be desirable that detailed financial information should be given to the House before Members are asked in Committee to deal with a Resolution of this kind. In the present instance I do not suggest
that it should be done before the Resolution is passed, because that would cause a delay, which we are all anxious to avoid; but I would suggest that even in the present instance it might be a good thing if, at least to the Members of the Committee who will presently have to look into the Bill upstairs, there could be given the detailed information from which the summarised figures which the Attorney-General has mentioned were derived.
The reason why I venture to press this suggestion just a little upon the Attorney-General is that, at the time when I was interested in the Bill, I had certain figures before me as to the estimated cost, and those figures did not altogether tally with the figures which the Attorney-General has just given to the Committee. The information that I had was, that the total cost, even including the registrars, would be £79,000, which the Attorney-General gave as the cost, excluding the registrars. Further, it was anticipated, according to the figures that I had, that the whole of the cost would be covered by the County Court fees which would be received, so that the net cost to the revenue would be nothing at all. Of course, it may be that further investigation of the figures has shown that those results were not quite accurate, and I do not, in the least, desire to challenge the statement which the Attorney-General has made, but the fact that there is that discrepancy emphasises, I think, what my hon. Friend—

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The figures which my right hon. Friend has given are quite accurate, and I did not intend to say anything that was different from them. What I intended to say was, that it was estimated that the saving, owing to the reorganisation of the Registrar's Department, would result in economies to the extent of £25,000, and that the total expenditure would be £79,000, of which one-half would be gratuities for the older men who are being retired at once. The £79,000 includes the expenses in connection with all the classes.

Sir D. HOGG: I am very much obliged to the Attorney-General for that explanation, which shows that there was not quite such a discrepancy as I had feared. Possibly I was under a misapprehension
as to what the Attorney-General told the Committee, but, when we are dealing with figures of this sort, which are just a little difficult to follow when they are given on the Floor of the Committee, I think it is desirable that the Members of the Committee should have an opportunity of knowing in detail what the calculations are, so that they may form a judgment as to the amount to which they are committing the country. I am not in the least suggesting that the expenditure in this case is not amply justified, and is not, indeed a very moderate one. I am quite confident that it is. I entirely support the Resolution, but I think that this is a useful opportunity to reinforce my hon. Friend's suggestion, which I think is a valuable one. There is one other point, which is almost microscopic. I notice that in the Resolution there is a reference to powers taken to pay certain officers in the Lord Chancellor's Department. As far as I knew from the Bill, there are no officers in the Lord Chancellor's Department who are concerned. The only reference to the possibility of there being such officers is in regard to some power, I think, to appoint examiners, or something of that kind, to examine the accounts. I do not know whether that is the occasion of the reference, but it struck me as a little difficult to understand. I am heartily glad that this Resolution has been introduced. I congratulate the Government on finding time for it, and I entirely endorse the words of commendation in which the Attorney-General recommended it to the attention of the Committee.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: I do not like to sit quite silent while this Resolution is presented to the Committee, because I should like to congratulate the Attorney-General on having found time to bring in this Bill. It is long overdue, and it deals with a most deserving class. They have no union, and have never been able to strike, and have never, therefore, been able to enforce their demands in what, apparently, is the only modern way, but have awaited year after year the very tardy justice that this Bill is now meting out to them. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give us some indication of the sort of scale of gratuities and pensions which are going to be given. I have not examined the Bill in any great detail, but I do not think it affords the information,
and I think the Attorney-General might, perhaps, give the Committee some sort of idea as to what provision is being made for these men commensurate with the amount of service they have rendered to the State. I should also like to say a word about the aspect of the case which has been presented by my hon Friend behind me (Sir K. Wood) with reference to the importance of the County Courts, and the consequent importance of making them more attractive to the officials interested in them. County Courts are becoming more and more important. When I was a young man first called to the Bar, I will not say they were inefficient, but they had nothing like the jurisdiction or the efficiency which they boast of at present. The County Court Judges were recruited from a different class of men. The amount of work they had to do was large, but the scale of the work they had to deal with was comparatively unimportant. As every year has gone by the tendency has been to put more important work on to the County Courts. They now try a great number of cases which, when I was a boy, could only be tried in the High Courts. Now there is even a proposition that divorce jurisdiction should be conferred upon them. They try important cases which often take a whole day, and the jurisdiction is becoming every year more important. If that is so you must make it more worth while for men with brains to enter upon County Court work, and this Bill is a distinct step in that direction. By giving gratuities and pensions in the future it makes this a branch of the Civil Service which it is worth a man's while to enter, and you will recruit a better class of man for what is rapidly becoming one of the most important branches of the jurisdiction of the country.

Captain BOWYER: Like many other Members of Parliament, I have had certain grievances sent to me relating to the Bill to which this Resolution refers. I am very much struck by the appeal of the Attorney-General, in which he emphasised the fact that what has been done has been the result of an agreement come to between the Treasury and the Lord Chancellor's Department, as well as the Association of Registrars and the County Court Clerks' Association. It is difficult enough very often to make an agreement between two parties. It is very much
more difficult, of course, to make an agreement between four parties, and I realise that whatever the force of individual objections and grievances may be it is of great importance, more especially as attention to this matter is long overdue, that what we have got by way of agreement should go through in the form in which it has been agreed upon. It seems to me to be all-important, in view of the increase of work which goes to the County Court now and in view of the increased importance which it holds in the life of the people, to make the whole life, of those who are involved in County Court practice more attractive. Not long ago a High Court Judge was selected from the County Court Judges. I believe that was a departure, but I cannot help thinking that if that precedent is not to be lost sight of in the future, it will act as something which will make the life of a County Court Judge more attractive, especially in this that it might lead to the possibility of a High Court Judgeship in the future. If in the case of this and other similar Financial Resolutions, we could have a White Paper it would be of great convenience to us. This matter, of course, assumes more importance when one speaks from this side of the House than when one speaks from that side, and it is not easy to grasp the full inner meaning of these Financial Resolutions, and the issue of a White Paper beforehand would lend enormously to an intelligent following of the Measure and of the statement of the Minister who introduces it.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I hope this Resolution is sufficiently wide in its terms to cover the very hard case of the older servants, and I hope the authorities, in administering the Bill, will take care not to pack off these old people with one, or at the most two, year's salary. The salary is extraordinarily low, and these poor people have been hardly able to keep body and soul together. I do not suppose there is anyone who has not come in personal touch with the administration of the County Courts Act who can realise the frightful monotony of the work. It is one of the features which makes one desire more to sympathise with those who have borne the burden of many years, either in the office of the registrar or of the high bailiff. Of course, in the smaller cases where the registrar has been a practising solicitor, there has been the general practice
of the office and they have been able to fill up their time. But that is not the type of clerk I have in my mind. I am speaking of Metropolitan clerks and County Court clerks in large towns, where their whole life is given up to it, and I sincerely hope, when we come to deal with it in Committee, we shall find the Government prepared to accept Amendments to make it perfectly clear that the clerks are to be adequately remunerated. Something has been said about the salaries of County Court Judges. There again, undoubtedly, with regard to the altered conditions in which we live and many other considerations which do not apply to other judicial arbiters, the position of a County Court Judge is entitled to very generous consideration at the hands of the House. I hope it may be found possible to make the provision which I think has been suggested from time to time by those officials in connection with the County Court system, and I hope they will be able to induce the Treasury to act generously towards them.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should like to reply to one or two of the observations which have been made. The most important seems to me to be the one dealing with a White Paper setting out the financial position before the matter comes to Committee. It is too late to remedy that now, but the Deputy-Leader of the House tells me that that has been the practice in the past, and certainly we have no intention of doing other than carrying on that practice in the future. With regard to this Bill, I will see that a Financial Statement is prepared which shall be available to Members of the Committee upstairs. I think I can make the financial position clearer. It is anticipated that there will be a saving in the reorganisation of the Registrar's Department of £25,000 a year. The total cost in the first year, with regard to the increased remuneration to the minor officials and the registrars and everyone concerned, will be £79,000, of which £39,000 will go in immediate gratuities to about 127 minor officials who are over 65 years of age, and will be retired at once. They Will get a gratuity of about £300 each. That is what has been agreed. It is very easy to appeal on the ground that it would be desirable that they should have more. All I can say is that, with regard to every one of these
matters, the increase of salary of County Court Judges, and such things as pensions to Judges' clerks, we should all like to do them, and we all feel they ought to be done, but the difficulty is to enable them to be done. There is nothing in this Bill which permits us to consider the increase of the salaries of County Court Judges. The Bill was not intended for that purpose.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Are those about to retire to be given the option of £300 or a pension?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No. Those who are to be retired under the agreement are men over 65 years of age. It is obvious that if you put those men on to a pension system, you are introducing the system that past years' service as the private servants of registrars was to be included in calculating pensions, and the scheme does not provide for that. In answer to the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), I should like to have seen if it were possible, but the scheme does not provide for previous years of service being taken into account in arriving at a pension. What we wanted to do was to get the best terms we could, and these were the best terms we were able to arrive at after a consultation with the various Departments. When we get into Committee, I shall be prepared to give every detail of the agreement, and the matter can be further discussed.

Earl WINTERTON: I rise to deal merely with the question of the White Paper, which is rather an important matter. As I understand it, the hon. and learned Gentleman has said it was due to an oversight that the statement was not published. I am very glad to hear it is the intention of the Deputy-Leader of the House in no wise to depart from the practice of previous Governments and always publishing the fullest information on Resolutions of this kind. This is a right which is very jealously guarded, and it has been the subject of protest on former occasions. On the face of it it looked rather like a departure from practice that no information should be published with the Resolution, and I am very glad to hear that there is no intention to depart from the practice.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION [GUARANTEE].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 71A.

[MR. ENTWISTLE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to increase from one hundred thousand pounds to six hundred thousand pounds the amount up to which guarantees may be given under the British Empire Exhibition (Guarantee) Act, 1920, as amended by the "British Empire Exhibition (Amendment) Act, 1922."—[King's Recommendation signified.]

Mr. LUNN (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): It will be remembered by some hon. Members that under the British Empire Exhibition Acts of 1920 and 1922 it was decided that the Government should guarantee the sum of £100,000. This sum was given on condition that there was guaranteed by private firms, corporations, etc., a further sum of £500,000. I believe that during the Debates many doubts were expressed as to whether the guarantors for the further £500,000 would come forward. At that time many of us did not see quite so far what would happen, but the exhibition to-day is something far more comprehensive than was in the mind of Members of the House at that time. We have the British Empire Exhibition to-day in reality, and I take it that most Members of the House will have taken the opportunity of having some kind of a look round at what there is to see. It is quite impossible to see the exhibition in one, two, three or four days, and without spending an additional penny after the entrance money one may go for days and be entertained and see something worth seeing and something quite new from what has ever been seen before. Over and above that, it is pleasing to know that every part of the Empire is taking part in this exhibition. In addition to the pavilions provided by the British Government, there are pavilions for every part of the British Empire, in which we may see displayed phases of life and industry in each separate Dominion or Colony. More than that, one may see in the Palace of Industry and the Palace of Engineering remarkable displays of the mechanical skill and beautiful work of British manufacturers and workmen. We are hopeful that the exhibition may do a great deal to encourage trade after or even before it is closed.
Guarantees have not only been given for the sum of £500,000, but for over £1,200,000. With regard to the guarantors who have come forward to enable the exhibition to be carried on, there are many hundreds of people in this country who have guaranteed from £1 to £10 each. The cost borne by the exhibition authorities directly up to the opening of the exhibition is £2,823,000, less revenue £594,000, or a total of £2,229,000. There is required a further sum of £379,000 to complete the construction, which cannot be met from revenue. That is the reason why the Government are asking that the original guarantee of £100,000 should be increased to £600,000. I think it is quite wrong to describe these guarantees as grants. They are not grants; they are guarantees. We are hopeful that the guarantees that we are asking for, and which have been given already, will mean no loss either to the individuals or to the Government. It is intended that the additional Government guarantee shall rank equally with the original Government guarantee and equally with those guarantees given by firms, corporations, private individuals, etc.
I should like to give the Committee some detail of the expenditure and of the estimated revenue. It is estimated that the total expenditure of the exhibition, so far as the Board of Management is concerned, will amount to £3,720,000, of which the purchase of the freehold and leasehold of the site represents £99,000. Under maintenance is included salaries, wages and interest on overdraft, and this is estimated at £867,000, but by far the largest sum is construction, which includes the Stadium and the Palaces of Engineering and Industry, and which represents £2,754,000. Of the total of £3,720,000 the sum of £2,823,000 has been expended up to the date of opening, 23rd April. Against this expenditure the receipts up to the date of opening amounted to £594,000.

Sir K. WOOD: Has a White Paper been provided in respect of this Financial Resolution?

Mr. LUNN: A White Paper has been published, which, I admit, after the discussion that has taken place on the last Resolution, is not so satisfactory as hon. Members would desire. Against
this expenditure of £2,823,000 we have to place the receipts up to the date of opening, which amount to £594,000. By far the greater amount of that sum represents rent for the space occupied by the exhibitors. The overdraft at the date of opening was £2,229,000. To this must be added £379,000 for construction in respect of work which was not completed on the date of the opening or had not been certified by that date. If the cost of construction which has still to be met is added to the overdraft the sum is £2,600,000, which it is estimated will be the maximum overdraft likely to be required.
The reason for asking that the House should give this guarantee is that Lloyds Bank have agreed to allow the Exhibition authorities an overdraft of £2,600,000 on the understanding that the Government increase their guarantee by £500,000. Assuming this is done, Lloyds Bank will then hold as security the guaranteed fund of approximately £1,200,000 (including the £100,000 Government guarantee), and this further £500,000, and the title deeds of the land and buildings belonging to the British Empire Exhibition, against which it will be seen that they have advanced £900,000.
I should like to give some further reasons for asking for this sum. The original estimated expenditure on construction was £1,600,000, excluding, of course, the British Government Building, the Dominion, the Colonial and the Indian Buildings. Increased participation by different parts of the Empire has been responsible for an additional expenditure in many ways. Some parts of the Empire were very late in deciding to take part and others were averse, but a change has taken place, and now, with the exception of Southern Ireland and British North Borneo, every part of the British Empire is concerned and has an interest in this exhibition.
It will be understood that we have not had the best of weather during the last few months. This has been a source of great trouble to the management of the exhibition, and it has led to considerable increase in the expenditure upon the roads. Those who went to the exhibition a few days before the opening and saw the very heavy machinery passing through the grounds would see that they
left the roads absolutely out of condition, and much expense has had to be incurred as the result of what happened. There has also been additional cost in the way of bridges, gardens and lay-outs. The catering concession at the exhibition was not settled until September last.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: What are the catering terms?

Mr. LUNN: I will tell the hon. Member directly. In organising an exhibition of this kind it is necessary, towards the date of the opening, that additional workpeople should be put on, and that everything should be done to increase the speed of the work, so that it may be something worthy when the exhibition is opened. There was considerable additional cost prior to the opening by reason of that fact on account of the delays of various kinds which took place. There is one point of some importance with regard to the exhibition to most of us who have given any sort of consideration to the question of providing work for our people. For many months the number of persons employed at the British Empire Exhibition was 19,000, and even to-day the estimated number of persons employed there is 21,250, so that it is a real relief to unemployment, and if we take into account what may have been saved in this way in regard to unemployment relief, even if the Government lost the £600,000, they will have saved a great deal by the provision of work which is far better relief than any other that could be provided.
With regard to the revenue, again I have to complain of the weather, which has not been upon its best behaviour until to-day, which is a nice day, and you will see the effect of it at Wembley to-day, as I have seen it, in the very large crowds that happen to be there on this occasion. The management are not dissatisfied with the position up to this moment, not that the numbers are anything like what they would desire, but the total of the first £1,000,000 will, it is hoped, be reached to-day. Those who remember last Saturday and the weather which prevailed, when there were 86,000 people visited Wembley, will quite understand the Board of Management not feeling dissatisfied
with the results up to this moment.
I am not an expert on exhibitions, but I am advised that in this type of business you do not expect your greatest crowds at the opening, and it is estimated that you would not reach more than one-third of your estimate in the first half of the period for which the exhibition will run, and two-thirds during the second period, so that it is not expected that the revenue received up to now from the gate money will have more than met the ordinary current outgoings of wages, salaries, bands and other matters that come under the heading of maintenance. I may mention that the total estimated figure for maintenance is £867,000, of which £351,000 had been incurred before the opening date, leaving a balance of £515,000 still to be met.

Sir A. BUTT: Is that up to the end of the Exhibition?

Mr. LUNN: It includes the provision of salaries and wages and all costs which come under maintenance, and it is hoped that the revenue will come in more rapidly until at least the overdraft is paid off. It is very difficult to estimate what will be the total revenue from an exhibition like this. So far as rent and space is concerned there has been more than £500,000 realised. The estimate of the number of people visiting the Exhibition which the British Empire Exhibition authorities have made is something like 30,000,000 people. They estimate that during the run of the exhibition this summer there will be no less than 30,000,000 people visit the exhibition. If these figures are realised, the revenue would amount to £2,350,000, while, on the same basis, concessions and entertainments should bring in £950,000, or a total of £3,800,000, against an estimated expenditure of £3,720,000. I hope that estimate will be realised, and that we shall see this large number of people take advantage of this wonderful opportunity to see the most remarkable exhibition that has ever been held in any part of the world.
I ought to say a word or two with regard to the Amendments which are down on the Paper. The first one stands in the name of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Darbishire) and other hon. Members below the Gangway. I do
not know that I can say any more than I have already said with regard to the cost and the revenue, but I am sure that it is impossible to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Members. I have tried all I know, not only to accept his Amendment but to avoid the possibility of his Amendment coming before the House. It is not one of the pleasantest things for anybody who occupies the position which I do to come here and ask for money. I have tried to avoid this, but I find it is absolutely necessary that we should ask for this sum in order to complete the cost which is to be borne by the Board of Management.
6.0 P.M.
With regard to the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr E. Harvey) as to the provision by the exhibition authorities of free sanitary accommodation and mess room accommodation for the exhibitors' assistants, that matter has been raised on many occasions and dealt with by Question and Answer, and I am only able to say that the Home Office have called the attention of the Empire Exhibition authorities to the Public Health Act, 1890, on this subject. Section 22 of that Act provides that suitable accommodation in the way of sanitary convenience must be provided in every building where persons are employed in any trade or business. Arrangements have been made by the exhibition authorities, whereby a charge of 1d. should be made for the use of the w. c. s, or alternatively 12s. 6d. for a season ticket, entitling the holder to such accommodation for the period of the exhibition. These are charges which must be borne by the employers.
The Home Office have pointed out that the authorities must take some effective action, and bring the matter to the notice of the exhibitors that they are under an obligation to provide lavatory accommodation for their workpeople. That has been done. A letter has been sent by the authorities to each exhibitor, pointing out what are their duties in the matter under the Act. With regard to those employed by the exhibition authorities, they are provided with accommodation, and the requirements of the Act have been met. With regard to the amusement concessionnaires, they also have provided facilities for their employés. Messrs.
Lyons employés have separate accommodation.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: Can the hon. Member say anything about mess-room accommodation?

Mr. LUNN: The exhibition authorities have provided mess rooms.

Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. I think it is a rather inconvenient arrangement, and I am not sure that it is in order, to discuss Amendments before we have disposed of the Main Question. It would be more convenient if the hon. Member dealt with the Main Question, and we discussed the Amendments when we come to them. Otherwise, the Chairman may rule that we cannot discuss the Amendments, because they have already been discussed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have considered that point. The hon. Member is not strictly out of order. I have permitted him to proceed, because I thought it might influence hon. Members in not moving some of their Amendments. I considered it would be convenient to deal with Amendments briefly in this way, but any discussion on the Amendments should take place on the Amendments when they are moved.

Earl WINTERTON: I am much obliged for what you have said, and I am sure that the point had not escaped your notice. It is not a very convenient way to deal with the matter.

Mr. LUNN: I appreciate the intervention of the Noble Lord, and I agree with what he suggests. My point was that there might be a likelihood of discussion upon these matters, and I thought that if I could give information in moving the Resolution it might help the Committee to come to a decision upon the matter. I might add that in regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham) as to the employment of women police, the Exhibition authorities have provided a number of women police, and, if it is found necessary, they are quite ready to provide more at the Exhibition.
There is another matter with which I should like to deal in order that we may avoid anything in the nature of acrimonious discussion. I refer to the recent
attacks in the Press on the subject of wages and conditions of employment at the Exhibition. I have had an interview with the Trade Union Congress on this matter, and it was a very pleasant interview, with the object of arriving at some point of agreement in regard to the conditions of employment affecting the many thousands of people employed at the exhibition. I am sorry that the Press have taken this matter up at this moment, because, as a life-long trade union official, I would rather settle matters than be all the time grumbling about things that happen to exist at the moment. Out of that interview I was able last Friday to some to an understanding by which a joint committee will be set up and will meet under my chairmanship next Friday, to try to come to some understanding which will avoid exposure of this kind and, perhaps, lead to the better understanding which there ought to be between employer and workmen, rather than that we should have feelings of enmity. The joint committee will represent the Trade Union Congress and the large employers, together with a member of the Board of Management of the exhibition, and I expect they will meet next Friday morning.
In conclusion, I would point out that, apart from the sum which I am now asking the Committee to guarantee, the British Government are in this exhibition, and the Dominion Governments are in the exhibition, all anxious that it should be a great success. As this Vote will cover all possible contingencies, I hope the Committee will agree to it.

Sir ALFRED BUTT: I do not wish to criticise the hon. Gentleman who has just made a statement in regard to finance, but it seems to me extremely unfair that we should be asked to deal with figures of £3,000,000 or £4,000,000 in guarantees of receipt or expenditure, and only have the figures as they are read out to us by the hon. Member. I do not know whether it is in order, but if so I should like to move to report Progress in order that we may have an opportunity of considering the figures in the form of a White Paper. The only White Paper that was issued was a request for a further £500,000. No details whatever were given as to how the money was going to be applied or secured. The hon. Member has made a very lengthy and interesting statement
and has given us a rosy account of the probable receipts, and something in regard to expenditure, but we have to carry the figures in our heads. I should like to move that we have a White Paper before we consider the matter further.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not prepared to accept a Motion to report Progress, if that is what the hon. Member means.

Sir A. BUTT: I gather that that is a technical way of saying that we cannot have a White Paper to-day. It is true that the exhibition has grown much beyond the original anticipations, so much so that to-day, I think, I am not exaggerating when I say that the honour and prestige of the British Empire is very much involved in the exhibition. In these circumstances, I do not think there is anyone in this House, and I hope there is no one in the country, who is not prepared to do his utmost, not only to make the British Empire Exhibition a great success, but also to help it in its present difficulties, and not to direct destructive criticism against it. But that does not prevent hon. Members from asking questions in regard to what is going to become of the exhibition in the future. It will probably be within the memory of many hon. Members that, unfortunately, almost from its inception, the British Empire Exhibition has been a matter of grave concern. There have been most disquieting rumours in regard to the management. In the early days, there were grave scandals in regard to indecent haste in the issuing of many contracts, and in regard to the long and unnecessary delay in issuing other contracts. In that respect the hon. Gentleman said that the contract for catering was not entered into until September of last year. There was no reason why the contract for catering should not have been entered into two and a-half years ago. It was only delayed because people wanted to serve their own ends.
I do not propose to deal with what happened in the past. All that has gone, and we have to make the best of the circumstances, and try to make the exhibition a great success. I gather that at the present time there is, substantially, £1,200,000 guaranteed, including the British Government guarantee of £100,000, against an expenditure of something
like £3,750,000. The hon. Member says that the difference between these figures, of substantially £2,500,000, is going to be produced as to £500,000 from the British Government and £2,000,000 from various receipts throughout the exhibition. I hope his Estimates are accurate and that they will be realised. But I should like to know what is going to become of the equity of this exhibition when it is finished. We have heard that the freehold and leasehold grounds have been purchased for something like £99,000. That is a drop in the ocean when we are talking about £3,750,000. We have also heard about the very large sums that have been expended on various buildings that have been put up, but we have not been told what security the guarantors have for their money, what security the British Government are going to have for the further £500,000, and, what is even more important, what assets have already been alienated from these assets.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us, quite frankly, the whole facts. I am not casting any reflection upon him, because I know that the Colonial Secretary and the hon. Gentleman have only just taken the matter in hand. Are these assets already allocated to subsidiary companies, who are going to get a gigantic share of profit, and are going to deprive the British Empire Exhibition of very large profits, which, if the exhibition had been capably managed, they would have had to meet the enormous expenditure, and are this House and the other guarantors being asked to contribute capital expenditure in order that these people may make big profits? The figures show a lamentable difference between the original estimates and the subsequent cost. It is only fair that all the contractors who are making abnormal profits out of the original mismanagement in connection with the exhibition should be asked to forgo some portion of their abnormal profits, and so relieve, not only the public, but the private guarantors, and also relieve the Chancellor of the Exchequer of this additional charge. It may perhaps be in the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman that so long ago as December, 1922, there was considerable criticism of the management of the British Empire Exhibition in the public Press. It continued to accumulate to such an extent that eventually the then President of the
Board of Trade appointed a Departmental Committee, and I will read two short extracts from the Report of that Committee, which was presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks):
I am of opinion that there have been unfortunate occurrences in connection with the negotiations for this concession which, full information as to the negotiations not being in the possession of those outside the exhibition management, might justify criticism as to the method adopted, and might in fact create suspicion that improper methods were being adopted, or that there was a lack of business aptitude on the part of those responsible.
Later on he says that throughout the negotiations there was a woeful lack of business acumen and business method, and he concludes in this significant paragraph:
In this connection, too, I would point out that, had it not been for the subsequent entry of other competitors, an offer from the competitor would undoubtedly have been accepted at or about the end of September on terms less advantageous to the exhibition than those ultimately offered from the same source.
I am merely reading that, because I think that it is generally a very fair summary of what happened in regard to almost every concession in connection with the British Empire Exhibition. If we are to be asked to find an extra half-million, which we must find for the honour of the Exhibition, those people who are getting abnormal profits should be asked to disgorge some portion of it. The hon. Gentleman, in his estimate of the probable revenue, said that, given fine weather, which I sincerely hope the Exhibition will enjoy, one might reasonably hope that the amusements section would yield £1,000,000 to revenue. I think the figure was £950,000. Does that mean £950,000 as the share of the British Empire Exhibition, or £950,000 added to the receipts?

Mr. LUNN: I am afraid that I cannot say whether it means an addition to the receipts. The amount, I take it, is for all purposes.

Sir A. BUTT: If it merely mean £950,000 additional to the receipts, the net sum available to help to wipe off the huge overdraft will be comparatively small, because I do not think that the British Empire Exhibition will benefit to any large extent from the receipts of the
amusements. I understand that the proportion is 33 per cent., or less. Unfortunately, though the Exhibition is only going to get 33 per cent., I believe that what is militating so much against the success of the amusements section of the Exhibition is that that concession was immediately disposed of, not at 33⅓ per cent., but at something like 66½ per cent. What is bad for the Exhibition is that the concessionnaires—and I hope that the Committee will forgive me for introducing a personal note, but I have been inundated with letters from them—have to pay 64 per cent. The result is that these people necessarily have to put their prices high, and the result is that there is so much less patronage for the amusements section
I submit that this is a matter in which we can properly ask the Minister to ask these people to reconsider the terms of their contract because if they have to get less of this gigantic profit on the difference between what the exhibition is given and what the concessionaires are asking the many features in the amusements section will probably lower their prices. And I suggest that in those circumstances the net receipts would be very much larger, and consequently the amount received by the exhibition would be larger, and would materially reduce the large overdraft. The hon. Gentleman went on to explain, and indeed the only White Paper we have states, that this £500,000 is largely required because of the great participation of the Dominions and Colonies in the exhibition, a participation which everyone in this House is delighted is so large and so beautifully carried out.
I can only regret that, while on the one hand we are inviting our Dominions and Colonies to show all their wonders, yet in another way we are refusing to hold out the hand of friendship. I cannot imagine a more inappropriate time to show the wonders of the British Empire at Wembley than when we are refusing to carry out a large number of the recommendations of the recent Imperial Conference. I only hope that all the visitors from the Dominions who are coming here will not think that we are an illogical as well as an impractical people. We ask them to come over and spend their money by showing
us their wares, and then we tell them that we are not going to give them any special facilities for selling them. Perhaps I have digressed for a moment, but I do not know that I have done so more than hon. Members opposite.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. Member has digressed, and he must not pursue that subject.

Sir A. BUTT: I regret my digression. I understood from the paragraphs in the Press that the Dominions and Colonies had voted huge sums for their own particular buildings. Are we to understand that the figure that the hon. Member mentioned, £3,700,000, includes the contribution from the Dominions and Colonies or is this in addition, and, if so, can he tell us in what way we have had increased expenditure because the Dominions and Colonies have come in? We all wish for the success of the exhibition so that the guarantors, all those public-spirited men who came forward and guaranteed a very large amount of money, shall receive back, if not 20s. in the £, as the hon. Gentleman anticipated, at least 10s. in the £. I do hope that the hon. Gentleman will first of all insure that the real assets and the real equity of this exhibition shall be held in trust equally for the guarantors and the British Government, and secondly that, before we give this extra half million, he will look into all those huge contracts, which I do not wish to enumerate here, in connection with Wembley, and I would like him to say to those people: "We are putting up an extra £500,000 which we did not anticipate and which we were never asked for. We are putting it up for the honour of the British Empire. You are getting all the profit without any extra risk. Before we put up this extra money you must amend your contract so that the British people may get something back for their money."

Sir CHARLES OMAN: The right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of this matter may be relieved when he understands that I speak as one who does not wish to reproach him for the doings of officials, who were functioning in last September or at other remoter dates before he entered on his present office, and that I do not speak as one who wishes to associate himself with the attempt to cut down the sum now asked for, which is
proposed on the other side. He is being addressed by one who wishes all success to the institution, and is surprised to see such a wonderful thing functioning successfully, and fully hopes to see its treasury bulging in the most satisfactory fashion as the summer months come on, when the good weather, denied to us in April and May, supervenes, let us hope, in July and August. But I have a little plea to put to the right hon. Gentleman. He did not mention in connection with the British Empire Exhibition what, I think, is not altogether undear to him and for which I myself have the greatest regard. That is the projected Imperial pageant which is to come off in July. I was hoping to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that some of the large extra credits which he is asking for, and which I have no doubt the Committee—

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): There is not a solitary amount included in this Estimate which applies to the pageant.

Sir C. OMAN: I do not see that that prevents me from observing that I did not notice the right hon. Gentleman mentioning the pageant. The right Hon. Gentleman has stated for me precisely what I was stating for myself, and I therefore can only consider that he is preaching to the converted. But I wish to know whether in this sum or some other sum the right hon. Gentleman cannot find some way of pushing on the arrangement for the pageant, It is a small question of finance, of a very few thousand pounds, and this I regard as a suitable time for asking him—he and I having an equal wish to see the whole exhibition go through in the most satisfactory way—whether a feature of it to which the attention of the public has been called, and which as a student of Imperial history I myself hope might be a great lesson to the British Empire, as showing the development of our communities from their small beginnings through the great events of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, might not have a little attention paid to it when the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the other features which will make the Exhibition as I hope a very great success. It would be a thousand pities if a small hitch caused the cutting down of a very great and noble idea for which many people have given up their leisure during the past months. While I acknowledge that
this does not come into the Motion, yet I venture to make this plea to the right hon. Gentleman, in the hope that he will look upon it with a kindly eye and that the blessing which follows good deeds may supervene upon his benevolence.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out the word "six," and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
The object of this Amendment is to reduce the extended guarantee from £600,000 to £200,000. In the first place, I would like to associate myself with the hon. Member for Balham (Sir A. Butt) in his expression of regret that we have not had any White Paper giving us figures, or some fuller explanation, why this money is necessary. We are asked to increase the national expenditure of this country by £500,000, and we have nothing given us except figures stated verbally by the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade—figures which it was quite impossible for us to carry in our minds in order to base our remarks upon them. It is most deplorable that there should be this omission. The Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade is never more graceful than when doing something distasteful, and I could not help feeling that he was doing something that he would rather not have done at all. I am confirmed in that thought by the fact that in 1920, when the original Bill was passed authorising £100,000, the hon. Member went into the Division Lobby to oppose the grant of that small sum. I forgive him the peculiar inconsistency with which he now rises to increase that sum by £500,000.
When the original Bill was introduced the amount of £100,000 was asked for, on the definite understanding that other guarantees would amount to £500,000; in other words, that the risk which the British Government ran should be one-sixth of the total risk run. As I understand the matter, the outside guarantors, apart from the Government, account for £1,100,000. It is proposed now to increase the Government guarantee by £500,000, making it £600,000, which would bring the total guarantees up to £1,700,000. Therefore, instead of having one-sixth of the risk, as when the Bill was introduced, it is now increased to less than one-third That is a breach of the understanding upon which the original Bill was introduced and passed. I was not in the House
in 1920. Had I been here, I should have found myself associated with such vigilant watchdogs of the national expenditure as the present Lord Banbury, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and the Secretary of the Department of Overseas Trade. I was very glad the other day to hear an answer from the President of the Board of Trade, in which he said that it was no business of the Government to find markets for manufactures.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Webb): I said nothing of the kind.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: May I ask what the right hon. Gentleman did say?

Mr. WEBB: I said it was no business of the Government to find markets for particular manufacturers.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: Then I withdraw my remark, and I am sorry that I cannot associate the right hon. Gentleman with the views I hold as to the duties of a Government regarding foreign trade. In my view it is no business of the Government at all to bother about foreign trade. As Mr. Gladstone once said, it is the function of a Government to govern and not to trade. What has the Government to do with exhibitions of this kind at all? I understand that these exhibitions are run for the benefit of the trade of the country. We are told that the total expenditure of this exhibition is to be only £4,000,000. The total foreign trade of this country is something like £2,000,000,000 a year. A trade of that extent can afford to run its own exhibitions and not ask this House to recoup it for any loss on an exhibition. The Exhibition seems to be the child of that egregious excrescence, the Department of Overseas Trade. In my opinion it is of no value to the trade of this country.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. I submit that this is going beyond the Motion that we are now considering.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must bear in mind that he is moving a reduction of the amount. His argument now is inclined to be against the giving of anything at all.

Earl WINTERTON: If we are to have from the Benches opposite an exposition
of the whole case for Little-Englandism, many of us on this side of the Committee will keep the Debate going indefinitely.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: I am afraid that I do not associate myself with the view that we on this side of the Committee are Little Englanders. I quite appreciate the fact that I was overstepping the limit of the Debate in dealing with the Department of Overseas Trade. There will be another opportunity of dealing with that subject. When the first Bill was introduced and the original sum of £100,000 was named as necessary, Mr. Kellaway, who introduced the Measure, told us that the exhibition would be self-supporting and that the country would never be called upon to pay this £100,000. It is quite clear this afternoon that, not only shall we have to find the £100,000, but an additional £500,000. I have been unable to follow the figures given to us. I understand that the original estimate was that the revenue of this exhibition would be £1,800,000 and the expenditure £1,500,000, and that there would be a surplus of over £250,000. On those figures the guarantors and the Government were asked to subscribe money. A year ago we were told that the gross estimated expenditure to the end of the exhibition would be £2,400,000. A year later we were told that the gross estimated expenditure to the end of the exhibition would be £3,700,000. The estimate is "out," therefore, by £1,300,000. The exhibition is under the control of the Board of Trade. I object to the Government financing it. In any case I hold that the proportion of one to five should not be altered. That is the reason why my Amendment mentions the sum of £200,000, because that maintains the same proportion to the guarantors as it was originally arranged for the Government to subscribe, namely, the proportion of one to five. That is roughly the same as a proportion of two to eleven. When this Bill was introduced one of the arguments was that exhibitions assisted our trade. Mr. Kellaway told us we had just had an Imperial Timber Exhibition in this country, which showed that there was no need to depend upon foreign sources for our timber. What was the result? In 1921, the year of that exhibition, we imported from our Colonies 10 per cent. Of the timber used in this country. Two years later—

Sir BURTON CHADWICK: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Member not arguing that there should be no exhibition at all?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have ruled that as out of order. The hon. Member must restrict himself to the Amendment.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: I am giving my reasons for not increasing the amount. Surely, it is pertinent to quote arguments used on the original Bill? Two years after this Imperial Timber Exhibition the imports from the Colonies decreased to 8 per cent.; we were buying more from foreign countries than at the time of the exhibition. Another argument which was used was, that always after an exhibition there is a great increase in foreign trade. I have gone to the trouble of taking out some figures. I find that that statement is correct. But I have found that before an exhibition there has been a decrease from the previous years, which shows that these exhibitions are nearly always held at the bottom of a cycle of trade; exhibitions are always held at the nadir of these depressions, because there are numbers of busybodies running about the country who have nothing to do but to get up one of these exhibitions.

Sir E. HUME-WILLIAMS: Is not the hon. Member again going into the whole question of the holding of the exhibition?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has been transgressing my ruling. He must not do it again, or I shall ask him to conclude his speech.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: I am very sorry, but I cannot, see how I have transgressed your ruling. The real reason why I move this Amendment is to suggest that there should be an inquiry into the whole management of the exhibition. We have had one inquiry in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) took buckets of whitewash and whitewashed the whole thing.

Earl WINTERTON: I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, is the hon. Member in order in bringing a charge which amounts to one of bad faith against my right hon. Friend by accusing him of having thrown buckets of whitewash over the exhibition?
This is a very serious matter. This was a Committee of Investigation on which my right hon. Friend sat in a judicial capacity. I submit the reference is entirely out of order and has nothing to do with this discussion, and that it is wrong for the hon. Member to impute most serious motives of bad faith to my right hon. Friend.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is quite a disorderly expression, and it is wrong to impute motives to any hon. Member.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: I withdraw, at once, any suggestion of motive against the right hon. Gentleman to whom I referred, but I think it regrettable that the evidence of that inquiry was not published to the House as was demanded at the time. I wish to deal with the question of the Amusements Committee. As I understand it, the Amusements Park is the one part of the exhibition which seems to attract people. Perhaps I had better not pursue that subject either, or another point of order will be raised. Hon. Members opposite seem to think that we on this side of the House, because we question expenditure of this kind, have no love for and no sympathy with the Empire.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not start on that subject. I am not allowing any general discussion as to which party is for the Empire and which is not. It would be quite out of order on this Amendment.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: I have said all that I need say. I move the Amendment because I regard the Resolution as contradictory of the original understanding which was come to in this House, that the contribution from the Government should be in the ratio of one to five, and not in the ratio of six to seventeen as this Resolution would make it.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: Hon. Members on this side of the Gangway do not accept in its entirety the political philosophy which has just been explained from the benches below the Gangway. We do not take the view that a Government has no concern with the trade or prosperity of the people, and we definitely take the view that by such means as this exhibition we could greatly stimulate Empire trade and bind our Empire more closely together. We agree, however, with the hon. Member
who has just spoken that there should be a careful inquiry into the financing of the concessions in connection with this exhibition. It is one matter to have an Empire Exhibition, with the principle of which we agree, but it is another matter to allow a horde of financial robbers to fasten on to that exhibition idea and skin it. We are now asked to vote another £500,000.
Who is this money for? We are told by an hon. Member opposite that, within his knowledge, there are extraordinary profits in the sub-contracting, that the first, contractors give 33 per cent., and then sub-let, and there is another 33 per cent. Obviously, if that charge be well founded, something ought to be done, and I am surprised and rather disappointed that the hon. Gentleman who knew the details about the amusements contract, at any rate, did not give those details to the House. The one protection which the British public has in these matters is publicity, and I hope some hon. Member who knows something about the original contract which was given out to one big firm will give us the details of it. At any rate, I do not think we should agree to this extra guarantee until we are perfectly sure that the money is not disappearing into the pockets of some of the financial exploiters who seem to fasten round everything connected with the Empire. The Department of Overseas Trade should offer some explanation as to what they intend to do to prevent the British people who come to the exhibition from being robbed by hotel proprietors.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot see how that topic would be in order on an Amendment to reduce the guarantee.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Perhaps I should have kept that topic to the end. May I, however, direct attention to a statement made by the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade? In asking for this £500,000, his calculations are based upon a certain amount of income which can only be obtained if the exhibition is a success, and if a large number of people—a million extra—are attracted to the exhibition. I submit it would be in order to suggest to the Department of Overseas Trade ways and means whereby they can attract that extra million of people to the exhibition and so make it a success. One
of the barriers which is keeping people back from the exhibition is the fact that hotel keepers in some cases have doubled their prices. I know of one hotel in which, a short time ago, visitors to Wembley were allowed bed and breakfast at the rate of 7s. per day, and now that rate has been jumped up to 12s. 6d.
I suggest that the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade should take steps to secure a dozen or two dozen of the great steamships which are lying idle in our ports, have them brought up the Thames and let out the berths at reasonable prices to people who come to the exhibition. It could well be done, and I hope I am not transgressing the rules of order in making the suggestion. These ships are now rusting and doing nothing, and if the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade has them brought up the Thames, advertises the fact that we have gone in for the nationalisation of the hotel business and lets out the berths, as I say, at a reasonable rate, a very large number of people will be attracted to Wembley, the exhibition will be a financial success and probably the taxpayers will not be called upon to meet this £500,000 additional guarantee. I submit that all the troubles which have afflicted this exhibition, or are likely to afflict it, are due entirely to the fact that we have allowed private enterprise or private concessionnaires to come in at all. These private concessionnaires and hotel-keepers are going to rob the visitors, but let the hon. Gentleman go in for the nationalisation of the hotel business and he will stop the robbery of the visitors.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It seems to be thought by some hon. Members that the subject of nationalisation is in order on almost any topic. I cannot allow it on this Amendment, and the hon. Member must stick to the Amendment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I will drop the word "nationalisation" altogether. I know the Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade wants the Exhibition to be a success and does not want to see the country people who come into London to visit the exhibition being robbed, and I repeat the suggestion to himself and to his friend the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary—who is a gentleman of considerable initiative and who would not stick at a small matter of this
character—that if by to-morrow morning they announce a plentiful provision of hotel accommodation for the people visiting London in connection with the Exhibition, then the exhibition will likely be a bigger success than if the hotel accommodation is not provided. There are other points which I would like to bring up, but I fear I might transgress the ruling which you, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, have just made, and I should not care to do that.
In conclusion, may I say it is not good enough that we should be asked to vote this sum when it is common report and common rumour that concessionnaires are reaping fabulous fortunes out of the exhibition. I know perfectly well it is not the present Government who enters into the arrangement. It is the old damnosa hæreditas again, but the Government ought to clear themselves and tell us all they know about it. It would be one consolation which we would get out of a Labour Government, anyhow—to expose the rascals whom we never would be allowed to expose but for the fact that we have a Labour Government. Let the Government tell us about them, give us their names and the amount of plunder they are getting, and give us an explanation of the extraordinary prices which are charged even for a cup of tea at Wembley. The prime purpose of this exhibition is to popularise the Empire, to let the people of this country know that there is such a thing as an Empire, to show them what it means and to show us all the products of the Empire. Do not make it difficult for people to get to Wembley, and do not rob the working classes who go to the exhibition in the interests of exploiters, some of whom, at any rate, are aliens and foreigners.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: It would be too much to expect the Liberal party not to raise its voice on an occasion of this kind, and I have no doubt the Mover of the Amendment was inspired partly by the rancour which he feels for the Empire and all that appertains to it, and partly by a fellow feeling with—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have already ruled out of order the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, and I cannot allow the Noble Lord to deal with that subject either. He must confine himself to the Amendment.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: Is it desired that I should withdraw the remark?

Mr. DARBISHIRE: I do not care whether the Noble Lord withdraws or not.

7.0 P.M.

Marquess of HARTINGTON: I feel also that the objection to the spending of further money at Wembley may be due to some fellow feeling with the steers which are going to take part in that exhibition, steers which are likely, after having served their purpose, to be slaughtered. Objection was based on the fact that the private traders of this country ought to be able to put up enough money and to stand the whole of the risk. I would like to point out to the hon. Member that when the hon. Gentleman explained the figures he was dealing with the figures of the exhibition authorities, and he was not dealing with the enormous expenditure which has been undertaken by the private traders. They have come forward and spent a very large amount of money which may or may not come back to them in the form of increased trade. They have undertaken immense expenditure, and it is reasonable that the country, which stands to gain a very great deal from this exhibition, should take at least some share of the risk.
I was exceedingly glad to hear the hon. Gentleman who moved the Resolution say he was hoping that one million admittances would be reached to-day. That is very encouraging. I think an exhaustive examination of figures is hardly required to-day. It is perhaps regrettable that the figures with which we were supplied were not more complete. We know the broad fact that if some 30,000,000 people visit the exhibition it will be a financial success, and no guarantor will be called upon. If substantially more, it will be a great success; if substantially less, some of the guarantors will be called on for part of their guarantee. The risk of a wet summer may prevent some of the public from visiting the exhibition. The risk is there, and the banks are insisting on that risk being taken from their shoulders. I hope very sincerely the House will grant this money, and I believe, even if it has to find every penny of it, it will be a sound investment.

Mr. THOMAS: I rise at this early stage, because it is necessary to get the Vote
before 8.15 p.m. I had some doubt as to whether this was a serious Amendment prior to coming into the House. I had no doubt after I heard the speech, because I am quite satisfied my hon. Friend not only does not represent his party—that is a generally agreed point—I am not only satisfied that his party deplores his speech, but I am equally satisfied that the real object of this Amendment was to give him an opportunity of saying to the Committee that not having much to do, he had looked up the Records of the House and had found that my hon. Friend had given a second vote three years ago, and my hon. Friend had made a speech that he never made this afternoon. That is the sum total of the object of this Amendment, because, after all, I know the district my hon. Friend represents very well. Our information is that there are no people so anxious to visit the exhibition as the people in the Westbury district. I am not going to deprive his constituents of the opportunity they desire, and, he unfortunately wants to prevent them enjoying.
I draw the attention of the House to the different motive of the Seconder of the Amendment. Here we have an Amendment for a reduction with a view to killing the exhibition, seconded by an hon. Member who makes a contribution to help the exhibition. In other words, he says: "Well, I am only seconding this Amendment because I believe, it is a miserable Motion, because I think it is an unworthy Motion, because I think it is a Motion that ought not to be carried, but it enables me to make a speech which will be useful rather than harmful." Therefore, I am going to deal with his contribution. His contribution is an all-Scots one. That is to say, that he, in spite of all that is said about my friends from Scotland, has given another illustration of how patriotic they are. He has given an illustration to demonstrate this fact, that he said to a large number of his constituents in Stirling: "Now, whatever you may think of Glasgow, whatever you may think of Scotland, if you really want to see what the Empire stands for, come to London. Then they said to him: "What does it cost?" And he said: "I have been looking into it, and it is seven bob bed and breakfast." These wicked profiteers come along and falsify
all his promises to his friends at Stirling, and he says: "Now, why not bring into the Thames—commandeer them if you like, but get them—a number of ships, label them 'Bonnie Scotland.' and my friends will be satisfied."
I want to say quite seriously, the Government are disturbed about the profiteers, and everyone in this House ought to be disturbed—[HON. MEMBERS: "We are!"]—and is. I do not assume for a moment that Members on any side would be less anxious than another. It is not only wrong, but it is foreign to the intention of those responsible for the exhibition. It is contrary to their wishes, and this is profiteering of the worst kind. You find men and women coming to London anxious to bring their families and let them see what this exhibition really stands for, and they find themselves exploited. That is the object of the Seconder of this Motion. That is what he wants to stop. That is what we desire to stop. We do not want to cramp the exhibition. Everybody wants to make it a success, but everyone wants to stop abuses, and certainly the discussion this afternoon will be conveyed to the responsible authorities, and anything that can be done will be done not only on behalf of the Government, but on behalf of every section of the House to join in saying that this kind of thing must stop, and we intend to stop it.
It is only fair that I should explain the Government position. There was criticism of my hon. Friend: why did the Government come forward with this Estimate of £600,000. When we knew not only that £3,000,000 had been spent, but I venture to assert that, including the whole of the Dominions, the whole of the Protectorates and the Colonies, and the private manufacturers, no less than £24,000,000 to £30,000,000 had been spent, we would have been wanting in our duty if we had not said, regardless of our view, "We are going to make this a success." I was an early member of the Executive Committee. I could say much in criticism of the earlier stages, as everyone could. I could say to the Committee that I was dissatisfied with a thousand and one things, but when we had reached a stage when hundreds of thousands of people were on their way here, when millions of people were looking forward
to it, when millions of pounds had been expended, how could we have done other than say, "No, having reached this stage, we are going to make a success of it, regardless of the abuses of the past." That is the Government's connection with it. We are not apportioning the blame. This is not the stage at which to apportion the blame. In spite of all the criticisms, no one who has visited Wembley can be other than satisfied on two points. They have not only got their money's worth; they are not only satisfied that it is a great exhibition; but they cannot be other than impressed with the possibilities within the Empire as displayed by the Wembley Exhibition.
As to the future, because that is really the important point, my hon. Friend raises the question, What about the assets of the future? Will you give us any guarantee? This is the guarantee that I can give. I will give a guarantee that the exhibition will neither be destroyed nor its assets sold, nor any profiteer or exploiter allowed to take advantage of the situation without full consideration of all that is involved in the question. No one can say at this stage what the future is going to be. No one can say what will happen, because it may be at a later stage that it may be decided—and, I quite frankly, am speaking for myself alone—that the exhibition will be continued. That is my private view. At any rate, I am determined that the assets will not be thrown away.
With regard to the amusement contract, of course, it is wrong for one person to come in. The Government get 30 per cent. up to the first £1,000,000 and 40 per cent. over £1,000,000. These are the terms of the contract. I understand that contract, which was an original contract, has been now sub-let to someone else, and they are getting the difference. I do not know anything about it. We are not responsible for it. We do not defend it in the least, but do not even let that prevent us making the best of the situation as it is at this moment. It is a magnificent success. I venture to say that not a copper of the £600,000 will be necessary. That shows how optimistic I am. I do not believe we will require the guarantee, but we were compelled to come to the House for it, having sanctioned it.
There are criticisms on the Labour side. The Committee generally will be pleased to know that we are going into those immediately, and steps are being taken by my hon. Friend to deal with that side of the situation. We will also go into the question of exploitation which has been mentioned, and I only ask the Committee to vote us this sum, not because they are getting the Government out of a difficulty, but because the Government have again demonstrated that they can rise above party interests; because the Government have given one of the many illustrations that when the real things that matter come up they play the game. We are playing the game to-day. This Estimate is an Estimate which we do not defend in every detail, but it is an Estimate which we defend on general broad principles. On those principles we ask the House to give us this money. We believe that is the right thing. I am satisfied my hon. Friend will be more sorry when he reads his speech to-morrow morning, but equally he will say to himself, "Well, after all, it was an afternoon that appeared free. I wanted a free afternoon's entertainment. I endeavoured to get the House of Commons, and if they were pleased and are free from the Entertainment Duty, no one is the worse for the effort."

Mr. ROYLE: I do not wish to associate myself with the Amendment, because I am not in favour of it, but I want to express a very earnest desire—and I sure I am speaking the feeling of Members on this side—that the exhibition should in every sense of the word be a great and triumphant success. I have had brought to my notice during the last few weeks something in the nature of what may be profiteering on the part of railway companies in connection with this matter. We are very desirous that everybody who can make it convenient at all shall come up to Wembley, but always the question of expense comes upon the scene, and I am wondering if the Ministers responsible could use any influence with the railway companies so that the travelling facilities might be improved. I have had brought to my notice, for instance, to-day from my own constituency the fact that a party of 25 are desirous of coming to the exhibition, but they want to make it a two days' visit instead of a one-day visit. Therefore they are not eligible for the one day
excursion. The railway companies and the exhibition authorities unitedly desire as far as possible that advantage should be taken of the mid-days of the week rather than of the week-end. This particular party want to come on the Wednesday and Thursday, but they are told they can have no excursion facilities at all, and must pay the ordinary fare from my town of £2 5s. 4d. for the two days. Surely that is a case where the railway companies ought to be able to do something in the way of meeting the situation.
I have the honour to be chairman of my own local education authority, and we are anxious to bring up to the exhibition a number of our school children. We find that we can bring a company of about 1,000 children and over 100 teachers, and we ask the railway companies for their terms. We are told that the various companies running from the town have entered into an arrangement over prices, in consequence of which we find that we shall have to pay for this trip for the children a sum of nearly £700 to bring them up and take them back. We think that is a sum of money that is altogether too large when only one train will be required, and in consequence I feel that this will be a hindrance. We all want to make the exhibition a great success, and I beg that the Ministers responsible shall see how far they can assist the situation by making an appeal to the railway companies concerned.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would like to back up the appeal made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Royle) regarding the railway companies and school children, because I do not think this House or the Government could wish to help any project so much as that children should go to Wembley to see the exhibition and gain some knowledge of the British Empire. Besides seeing the products of the Dominions, they can get a knowledge of the history of the Empire, and it can but do good. I think we should have some arrangement whereby every child who is old enough to appreciate the exhibition on its educative side should have a chance of going there and of paying only a very small entrance fee, if any. As far as the amusement side is concerned, that is another matter, and I
would not touch on that side at all in this connection. After the speech of the Colonial Secretary, I think we can but feel extremely pleased at the attitude of the Government towards the exhibition, and I would heartily endorse the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman concerning the speech of the Mover of the Amendment. I am sure the hon. Member did not mean a great deal of what he said. I sincerely hope he did not, in any case. There are certain points that many would like to raise, and I have heard many rumours concerning contracts that perhaps should not have been entered into, but when it comes to suggesting, as the hon. Member opposite did, that the price charged for a cup of tea was too high and that there was not hotel accommodation, I think we should remember that that kind of thing will be reported in all parts of the country and possibly in the Dominions, and if it is read that there is not enough hotel accommodation, a great many people will cancel their coming to London to see the exhibition.
The whole idea of the exhibition is to bring people from all over the world to London, and the return that we shall get, on the commercial side, for the £3,500,000 that we have laid out is in the money these people will bring into the country and into London, and they will bring a much greater sum of money to spend here than the small amount of £600,000 which we are voting to-day. Personally, I never thought the £100,000 would be sufficient for the exhibition. Anybody who has been to the exhibition—and I expect a great many hon. Members have been there already—can but have come to the conclusion that it is a gigantic and successful effort, and I think a great deal is due to the Dominions, which have helped in every way to make it a success. After going into the Canadian building or the Australian building, or even into those representing smaller Dominions and Colonies, we cannot but feel a certain amount of gratitude to them for combining to make the exhibition a success, and I hope that a great deal of this guarantee money will be repaid, but I shall be perfectly satisfied myself to vote it, even if it be not repaid, providing the exhibition is a great success. So far as these benches are concerned, we are wholeheartedly out for the success of the exhibition, because we believe, not only
that it will add to the trade of this country, but that it will bring the different parts of the Dominions and Colonies together with the Mother Country, and add to the prosperity of the whole Empire.

Mr. LEIF JONES: I should like to associate myself with the last two speakers with reference to the parties of children coming from the country to attend the exhibition. My own county of Cornwall is sending 1,000 children up, to which the education authority is contributing 10s a head, and they are coming for four days, with all the paraphernalia of nurses, doctors, and teachers, at very considerable expense. I hope the Government will help with the railway companies and with the whole of the charges which are being made in connection with these school children's excursions to the exhibition. While I am on that point, may I repeat a question which I put a few weeks ago, when the House was pleased to be very much amused because I asked whether water would be abundantly provided for these visiting parties of children? It is most essential, if large parties of children are to wander about these very extensive grounds, that there should be plenty of opportunities for them to obtain drinking I water and also opportunities for washing. There is another thing which I wish to put before the right hon. Gentleman. You have to pay 2d. for a seat in many parts of the exhibition, and there ought to be some provision—a good deal of provision—of free seats for visitors who wander about these grounds. These are small points, but the Government, especially when they are increasing the guarantee, have great influence in the matter, and can induce the exhibition authorities to put these small matters right. I am sure we all wish localities and towns to organise these parties of children, believing that nothing could be better for their education than to realise what the British Empire does for them.
My name is attached to the Amendment that has been moved, and I put that Amendment down with a very definite purpose, which has been achieved by the Debate to-day. I am bound to say that it was not the purpose, apparently, of the Mover of the Amendment, who had some further purpose in his mind, but my purpose was to bring home to the Government, if I could, that they ought to publish a White Paper in regard to
these Financial Resolutions, giving to the House a clear view of the purpose for which the money is wanted. Our original guarantee for the exhibition was £160,000, which was to be met by guarantees to the extent of £500,000 from private people. I did not know until to-day how generous had been the guarantees made by certain people in this country and that there were actually £1,100,000 of guarantees, apart from the guarantee of £100,000. That is a very remarkable contribution from private people towards this exhibition, and that, I think, might well have been stated on the White Paper, in which case one would have realised that, when so much more than the original £500,000 had been put up by private enterprise, the Government might well make a larger contribution than the original £100,000. Originally, we were to guarantee one-sixth of the necessary guarantee, but now the Government are guaranteeing about one-third of the total guarantee, and I think, on the statement which we have had to-day, that that is not an unreasonable extension of the Government responsibility in this matter, seeing the way in which the exhibition has grown and the large amount which has been guaranteed by people outside the Government. Had that information been conveyed, I do not know that I should have gone to the trouble of putting down an Amendment to ask for an explanation, and I would press on the Government that in all these Financial Resolutions they should make clear what are the responsibilities to be undertaken by the nation and the full reason for undertaking them. If they do that, they will, I am sure, have less trouble in getting their Financial Resolutions through the House than they have at the present time.
In putting down this Amendment, neither I nor my friends had the slightest idea that we were doing anything unfriendly to the exhibition. Quite the contrary. Remarks have been hurled at the Liberal party from the other side in regard to our attitude to the British Empire. I do not know that I can agree with the views of hon. Members opposite, but I am not likely to be unfriendly to the Empire. I was educated in Australia; I have travelled widely throughout Canada and Australia and the Empire, and I am, I believe, a faithful and true son, not only of this country, but of the British Empire, and, therefore, if our
methods do not always agree with those of hon. Members opposite, I beg that they will not attribute this fact to the "thin-lipped Little Englandism" of which we have been accused. It was not with any unfriendly feeling towards the exhibition, and still less with any desire to detract from the greatness of the British Empire, that I thought that this guarantee required explanation. Having had this Debate, having had the informing speeches that we have had from the representative of the Overseas Trade Department and the Colonial Secretary, and having got the facts which we might have had in a White Paper before the Debate began, I venture to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Darbishire) to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. DARBISHIRE: In view of what has been said by my right hon. Friend who has just sat down, I have great pleasure in asking leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question again proposed.

Sir PHILIP LLOYD-GREAME: I am very glad the Amendment has been withdrawn, and that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and who speaks with more authority and weight in this House than the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Darbishire), was different both in tone and substance from that with which the other hon. Member entertained the Committee. I should, indeed, be sorry if this Vote did not come as a unanimous vote from the whole of the Committee. Frankly, I think the Secretary for the Department of Overseas Trade would not have had serious difficulties to contend with if his White Paper had been rather less jejune. I myself, with a knowledge of the exhibition going over some years, was able to supply deficiencies, which, naturally, other Members in the House could not. I only want to say three things in support of this proposal. The first is, that I am sure the Committee will agree that, looking at the total amount of money which has been supplied not only by the guarantors, but spent by private firms and by the Dominions and Crown Colonies, the contribution which this House is asked to make, be it observed, not as a direct grant-in-aid, but only as
a guarantee, is, indeed, not out of proportion, and we should be sorry not to subscribe that amount. I would say two things to those who criticise the administration. It has been a task of colossal magnitude, and I say this having nothing whatever to do with the management. I am certain, whoever had been managing this, there were bound to be mistakes somewhere; but I am satisfied that to-day you have got the administration of the exhibition in the most efficient hands you could collect if you went over the whole country, and it would be a profound misfortune if anything were said or circulated which would withdraw the confidence in those now in charge of the undertaking—a confidence which is most thoroughly deserved.
Something was said about amusements, and I only refer to this because I think it is right to do so, as I understand—I was not in the Committee at the time—a rather long speech was made on this subject, and I think it right, therefore, to draw the attention of the Committee to the paragraphs in the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks), who made, at the request of the then Government, and the whole of the exhibition authorities, a very full investigation in connection with the organisation of the exhibition. On the question of amusements, he said:
Although I do not entirely approve of the business methods adopted by the exhibition management, I am, however, satisfied that it would be wise now to enter into a contract with the competitor whose offer was recommended for acceptance on the terms finally offered to him, as if there is much move delay the possibilities of success of the exhibition will be seriously jeopardised. For the reasons stated above. I therefore, recommend that this contract should immediately be signed.
That was the recommenlation of the right hon. Gentleman after making a full investigation. I cannot do better than quote the words with which he closed the report, namely, that it is the duty of all of us to work together
with the object of ensuring the complete success of this undertaking, believing that it is not merely a business venture, but a project of great Imperial significance.
I am sure that the appeal made at that time was universally accepted, and now that the people have seen the exhibition, and realise what it means, it will be more than ever endorsed, and, I hope and trust, unanimously acted upon.

Mr. HARDIE: The hon. Member who introduced this subject to-day made reference to the title deeds of the grounds upon which the exhibition stands as a guarantee. There has been controversy about this ground and the title deeds more than once, and I myself cannot accept those title deeds as of any value as a guarantee, because when the Page estates were under discussion some years ago, it was stated that all the lands in those estates, on part of which the exhibition stands, were left by two brothers, who left no will, and, as there was no heir, they remained Crown land. That being so, the land should remain Crown land until an heir comes along, and I shall vote against this sum unless I get some guarantee that these title deeds will be put on the Table or somewhere where we can get access to them. I want to get right down to this question, whether or not there is some underhand work so far as the Page estates are concerned. I say it is not a guarantee, and I defy anyone to produce a title to the land on which the exhibition is situated.
I have been to the Wembley exhibition, and I want to pass some remarks about it. Hon. Members have been wondering to-day why so much money has been spent. The reason is that it was not approached as an exhibition. All the exhibitions with which we can associate our minds in this country and other countries began with buildings that were temporary, but here you have a class of building for which you cannot very well say there is no more use. There is the best of ferro-concrete The mismanagement was not so much mismanagement as that those in charge of this business at the beginning either had no knowledge of what they were doing, or were absolutely in the hands of the contractors, who planned out the thing in order to bring them the greatest amount of plunder. I want to come to some of the sections in the exhibition. The Colonial Secretary said that anybody who entered the exhibition got his money's worth. What I should like to see about our exhibitions is the same relation to truth as the Colonial exhibitions. In their case you find the actual facts, stated, either by pictures or actual products, but go to what is called the "model coal-mine." It no more represents the average conditions in a mine to-day than Buckingham Palace represents
a slum. I visited the supposed model mine. Everything on the surface is an exact model, but we want to educate the public about the actual conditions underground. Instead of that, you have a representation of people working quite comfortably in a place six feet high, whereas actually in mines they have to wriggle about. Some ladies near me said, "This is not half bad; it is quite comfortable walking about here." If we wished the British nation to realise the conditions of one section of it, we would see at Wembley these people crawling about the model mine as the miners have to crawl. As regards the question of cost, the hon. Gentleman suggested that if you pay to go to the exhibition you could see it without paying anything more. I do not know how he does it, and he is not a Scotsman. I think you must have a good pocketful with you in order to do the exhibition. You go into a tea room—4d. for a cup of tea is nothing. You want something with the tea, and you get two slices of bread about the thickness of paper—I do not know how they manage if; it is scientific cutting—and then they give you a photograph of a piece of ham. Now we come to the question of bleeding the public who come to this country as visitors. The suggestion made by an hon. Member about ships came up once before when we wanted a ship near the House, because we could not get places in which to live. When I left this House the other morning at two o'clock to go a mile and a quarter beyond Ealing Broadway, I could not get a taxi, and had to walk. I rang all the hotel bells, but was told the hotels were full up. It would be very handy for Members of the House of Commons if a ship were lying here for them. You would then have more Members on the night shift, and better decisions. Unless I get some guarantee about the title deeds of the Page Estates, I shall vote against this.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I beg to move, in line 4, at end, to add the words—
provided that satisfactory arrangements are made by the Exhibition authorities to provide free sanitary accommodation and mess-room accommodation for the exhibitors' assistants.
I rise to call attention to a point which, I feel sure, will have the sympathy of the Committee. The Colonial Secretary has reassured the
Committee by what he has said as to the measures which the Government pro pose to take to prevent exploitation. I am not referring to the effect of financial exploitation, but we do need to see, above all, that in this great exhibition, which is associated with the interests of the Empire, the human conditions of labour should be worthy of the nation. Unfortunately, the arrangements, through somebody's negligence, have been such that it is only with the utmost difficulty, and after repeated questions to different Departments, that a step forward to satisfactory conditions has been made. The authorities of the exhibition, apparently, were unaware of the existence of the provisions of the Public Health Act, and when the question was first raised as to the necessary hygenic accommodation required for the assistants of the exhibitors, the Member who raised it was informed that arrangements had already gone so far that nothing could be done. The exhibition is open from 10 in the morning till 10 or 11 at night, and I think I am correct in saying that many thousands of persons of both sexes are employed in carrying on the work, without which the exhibition could not be a success. I think it is right that this House should insist in making this great grant—I do not begrudge it if it is properly used—that the Labour conditions should be entirely satisfactory, and hygienic conditions should be secured, not by the payment of a fee on the part of the assistants, but as a right. Unfortunately the position at present is that, at the last, after a considerable effort on behalf of the Minister, arrangements have been made by which messroom accommodation and lavatory accommodation can be secured may be secured on the payment of a big fee of 25s. on the part of the men and 20s. on the part of the women, which is an inclusive fee. So far as I can see we have no security now that the exhibitors will not pass on that charge to the assistants. I think we ought to know, on behalf of the Government, that that charge will not fall in any case upon the assistants who are taking advantage of the accommodation. Many of them are poor people. We know many of them have been unemployed until recently and that they cannot afford to pay a charge like this. In addition there is a charge
to those who make use of the accommodation provided for washing their hands, and that charge is 2d. It may seem a trifling thing to Members of this House, but it is not a light thing for the girls and young women assistants who are employed in great numbers if every time they require to wash their hands they had to pay 2d. in addition to the inclusive charge for accommodation to which I have referred.
It is all very well, I think, for the contractor, whoever he may be, to turn necessities into a glorious gain, but we need to secure on behalf of this House that hygienic conditions should be attended to. As a matter of fact it is right that the Government should give their guarantee that no charge will be made to the assistants for the accommodation provided, and that they will insist upon hygienic conditions, and the provision of proper rest rooms and messrooms for the assistants who have to work, not merely eight hours a day, but 10 or 12 hours a day; possibly more in some cases. I think, I say, we have a right to ask this, and I am sure I have the sympathy of members of the Government in making the request that I do.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I beg to support the Amendment which has been so well explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Harvey).

Mr. THOMAS: Perhaps it will shorten the Debate on this Amendment if I say a few words here. I am informed for the first time that it is true that the charge to which the hon. Member refers is being passed on. It shall have our attention. I entirely disapprove of it. It is wrong. It is contrary to what one expects. I would ask my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment and to leave the matter for the moment where it is, and we will deal with it in the very best way.

Mr. HARVEY: In view of the assurance of the Government, which I am very glad to get, and for which I would thank them, I shall have pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I beg to move, in line 4, at end, to add the words
provided that among the police required for the purposes of the exhibition the authorities undertake to employ a proportion of women police.
I welcome the promise that has been given by the Secretary for the Colonies that the question of providing more women police has already been considered, and, if it is found necessary, more policewomen will be appointed. It is not my purpose to-night to speak at length as to the necessity for women police; that has been debated in the House previously, and will no doubt be debated again. The case for women police has been put very well previously on many occasions, but it is in connection with Wembley that the case is just as important to-day as before, in fact it is more so. The danger is identical in Wembley as in London We have had it stated that the Metropolitan Police can not be spared from the London streets. I want, therefore, to suggest to the Secretary for the Colonies that he should give us an assurance that an adequate number of women police will be appointed at Wembley. The need is obvious. The work the women police have to do has to be done by somebody, and I make a plea to-night that it should be done by the right sort of person, by the women who have been trained for the special purpose of police work.
The Secretary for the Colonies has stated that there are at present 21,000 persons employed at Wembley. One feels that the young girls working there on behalf of exhibitors need the protection of the police. Protection is needed for girl guides who give voluntary service. There are, too, thousands of children visiting the exhibition, and I think the Secretary of State said that it was anticipated that probably 30,000,000 would visit the exhibition. I hope it may be so. But one does want to have the security of the supervision of women police for these thousands of children who are visiting Wembley during the season.
Then, there are the girls who happen to be stranded at nights, or who may be ill, or injured, or destitute, or those who have a tendency to drift in the exhibition. We want to have the protection of the women police for those, and also for the young men. The work is preventive. We all have the same desire as the Government to make this exhibition a success, so that it may have a high standing with our Colonies. We believe in binding our Empire together, but we want to ensure that our visitors from the Dominions when they
are over here shall have the right of protection and particularly the young people. We heard of the Palace of Industry to-night. We have heard of the Palace of Engineering. To-night I want to emphasise a plea for a palace of protection, not the sort of Protection we heard of yesterday, but protection for the workers and for the visitors to the exhibition. A personal visit, to the exhibition makes one proud of the Empire. We realise that at present there are, as the Secretary for the Colonies says, a certain number of women police. But what is that number? It is only four, and as these four work in two shifts, it means that there are only two policewomen on duty at the same time at the exhibition. They have a distance of 15 miles to patrol.
I do not wish to say a word other than that of praise for the work of the male police, but surely, when we are having such a number of women and children visiting the exhibition, the number of four women police to 250 male police is altogether out of proportion. These two women are engaged on their particular work. They take observations, look after petty thefts, and, above all, it is important that they should concentrate in the way of supervision upon the coloured men who form an attraction to our English girls. These four women have been selected from the force dismissed when the Metropolitan Police were reduced. There are many more available from the same source. I want to know whether the Government to-night will give an assurance that others, will be appointed. We are now in the early stages of the exhibition, and we all want to make a success of it at Wembley, and so give us a standing with all the members of our Empire.

Mr. THOMAS: I have only one observation to make. I am sorry that my hon. Friend emphasised that special protection was necessary because of the coloured races. I must dissociate myself from that point of view. There is no evidence whatsoever to the effect suggested, or that adequate provision is not made, and I think I need not say another word about that. On the other hand, I am quite sure that she would be the last to suggest, that this is purely a moral question. That again would be a wrong impression, and not be justified by our
experience at the exhibition. That there is room for the protection of girls we are, I think, agreed. At the moment, four women police are acting; this, however, is but the early stages of the exhibition. We have taken what seemed to be the necessary steps, but if more women police are required, they will be employed. I can give that assurance at once, and I want to say that those that are employed have justified everything that my hon. Friend has said in the past in favour of them. Therefore, there is no pressure necessary, except, perhaps, to say that we have already the power, and if we feel it necessary we will exercise the power. We do not, however, want it, and doubtless the hon. Member does not desire it to go forth that there is something wrong in the exhibition. There is nothing wrong. There is no evidence to show that; on the contrary, everything is working satisfactory, but I will give the hon. Member an assurance that her Amendment will be given effect to.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: I did not wish to convey to the Committee that there was anything wrong at all. It is only one's natural instinct. One is very anxious on occasions of this kind that certain protection, whoever it comes from, men or women, should be there. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment on the assurance that, if there are more women police required, they will be given.

Mr. STURROCK: I think before the Amendment is withdrawn it should be more fully considered. We have not had an opportunity of considering this to-night. The Amendment has really no direct reference to the Wembley exhibition, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, it does convey some sort of reflection upon people who are coming from all parts of the Empire to enjoy the exhibition at Wembley. As to its bearing upon the general question of women police, I suggest that the whole agitation in favour of women police at Wembley or elsewhere has been most horribly misused. There is no indication in any part of the country that the extension of the force composed of women is desired in any degree whatsoever.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: Yes, in Scotland especially.

Mr. STURROCK: I do not—

The CHAIRMAN: We are not in that respect discussing the question of women police in England or Scotland.

Mr. STURROCK: I challenge anyone, to show any evidence whatsoever—and there are many people who are coming to the Wembley exhibition from all over the land—that in any part of Scotland there is the least desire for women police on duty.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Has not the Amendment been withdrawn, Mr. Chairman, and is it in order to go on discussing it?

The CHAIRMAN: The proposal was that the Amendment, by leave, be withdrawn, but that is objected to, and, for the moment, we are discussing the question of women police at Wembley.

8.0 P.M.

Mr. STURROCK: I shall confine my observations to Wembley. Wembley is the home of the whole Empire, and if my hon. Friend presses for an extension of women police at Wembley, she is asking this House to agree to the idea that women police should be on duty, not only at Wembley, but throughout the whole territory for which this House legislates. If women police are to be at Wembley, then ipso facto they ought to be on duty in every town and village throughout the land. There is no justification whatever for the case my hon. Friend has put forward. Indeed, I am rather surprised that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary should give what will, I expect, be described as a sympathetic answer to the Amendment, because the women police force is the most extravagant thing, from the point of view of expense, that has ever been suggested in this House, or elsewhere. We cannot get away from the fact that no feminine police can go anywhere without the escort of a similar officer of the other sex. What is proposed, in actual fact, is that the police force at Wembley shall be exactly doubled. This is no time for the Committee of the House of Commons to agree to any such Measure. The whole case for the extension of the force of women police has never been made out properly, and the Committee ought to resist any proposal whatsoever, especially in this particular case of Wembley, to extend them. It is entirely wrong to suggest, that women police are necessary for duty
at Wembley because of suggested circumstances which, I believe, will never arise. As a Liberal, especially I do believe in not trying to emphasise the force of law in any direction whatsoever. I believe in liberty. I submit, with great respect, to my hon. Friend that she has not made out a case for the Amendment she has put down.

Mr. R. W. ALLEN: After the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mrs. Wintringham), it is hardly necessary for me to speak at all, but I wish to dissociate any Member of the party that occupies these benches from the statement which has just fallen from the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Sturrock). It seems to me extraordinary that an hon. Member who calls himself Liberal should suggest, as he has suggested, that the case for women police has not yet been made out. We are not here to discuss the question of women police in general, and I leave that entirely on one side. I want to suggest to this Committee, by way of protest against the remarks which have just been made, that if there is a case anywhere for women police it is in connection with this particular exhibition, especially in view of the thousands of children that will be visiting Wembley. I have listened to the Debates which have taken place in this House on the subject of women police, and I do not recall that any objection was taken to them on the ground of expense. Of course, the question of expense docs enter, but I submit that it is such a small item that we really cannot object to this proposal solely on that ground. I associate myself with the Amendment, and I venture, I hope without presumption, to dissociate my party from the remarks of the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: There are one or two questions I wish to ask in reference to this guarantee which the Committee is going to pass. I should be very glad to hear from the Colonial Secretary whether, if the Government have to find any actual cash under this guarantee, there is any security for such advance. Is there anything on which we could collect any amount we contributed? What amounts have the Colonies contributed?
I understand the sum is a very large one, and very much in excess of the amount we are ourselves guaranteeing. In regard to the allegations as to contracts, I understand the main contract given in this exhibition was arranged on a basis of cost, plus percentage. I understand the percentage was a very small one, but I would like to know approximately the amount of commission up to date. I am informed, on very good authority, that the total cost of the exhibition, including the exhibitors' buildings, is nearly £10,000,000. It would be interesting to have some information on that subject. I would like to point out that this exhibition has been put up, and has been got ready practically in time, to a large extent through private enterprise, and that private enterprise is taking a very considerable risk. Nearly everybody who is carrying out work there is giving a guarantee against the cost of the exhibition. I do not suppose that the profits they may, or may not make, will cover their expense, though everybody in this House hopes there will not be any loss.

Mr. THOMAS: There are only two questions I need answer. While it is true that the Dominions are not guarantors in the sense that the British Government is a guarantor, it is equally true to say that probably every one of them is spending more than the British Government has spent—very much move. With regard to the question of contractors, I understand the arrangement was on a basis of 9 per cent. Messrs. McAlpine were guarantors to the exhibition of £150,000, and it is only fair to say that no complaint of any sort or kind has been made against that firm as to the manner in which they have done their work. I therefore hope, now that this useful and profitable information has been given and in view of the cheap advertisement of the exhibition this afternoon's proceedings will have afforded, we may be able to get the Resolution.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I would like to see the exhibition a success, but I do not agree we should guarantee money to allow the people in London to exploit the people that come from the country. That is already taking place in the case of boarding-houses and hotels who are putting up their prices.

The CHAIRMAN: I am not sure that it is in order to discuss the prices charged by hotels and boarding-houses since the Colonial Secretary can do nothing to remedy that matter.

Mr. SULLIVAN: If nothing can be done, at least we can draw attention to the shameless exploitation of the public by refusing to agree to this guarantee. I appeal to hon. Members to make a protest in this matter. People believe in the Empire and they want to see the exhibition, but they do not wish to be robbed when visiting from the country.

Mr. WIGNALL: I would like to bear testimony to some of the statements that have been made as regards the enthusiasm and interest taken in the Dominions to make this exhibition a real success. I am sorry that there is any need for a guarantee, but I am glad the Government have faced the position and have brought forward this Motion so that the guarantee may be forthcoming and the money provided if necessary. I feel ashamed, however, when I see the lack of interest shown here, and the cold-hearted way in which this question of the world's greatest exhibition is being dealt with in the home country. It is in marked contrast to the organisation and willingness to spend which exist in all other parts of the Dominions. People are scraping together every available penny they can save so that they may come to England for the exhibition. The Dominion Governments are unstintedly voting the money needed. Therefore I am glad we are taking part in the efforts to bring about the success that the exhibition must attain.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — WAR CHARGES (VALIDITY—No. 2) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Validity of certain War Charges and Levies.)

Sir H. NIELD: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I have rather a long argument to develop, and I do not wish to give part of it now, and the remainder on a subsequent occasion.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — INDIA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. GRUNDY: I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the conditions and wages of labour in India are so serious as to call for such changes in the Indian constitution as shall secure votes for and representation of the workers and peasants of India both in the Assembly and in the various legislative councils.
I should like to say that I hope no words of mine will increase the discontent, or help to increase the number of periodic outbursts of the people against their conditions in India. I want to plead with the Government to take a greater interest in Indian matters than has previously obtained. I merely want to deal with one particular phase of the labour conditions in India that appeals to me probably more than any of the rest of the horrible and the appalling conditions that still obtain amongst the working classes in that country. Why I am at this juncture only attempting to deal with a very small portion of the working population of India, that is the mining population, the reason is because I am a miner myself, and I know something of the conditions of mining, whether it is in India or England. I am rather afraid that, in giving the figures, I shall not be able to give them with the fluency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My grasp of figures is very limited, and I may not make myself as intelligible to this House as I desire, but in drawing attention to the conditions under which the miners work in India, I want, in the first place, to point out that, in an answer given in July of last year to the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. T. Smith) by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), we had these very startling figures given in respect of the workers in the mines of India.
We were informed that in the coal mines of British India 65,780 men were employed, 42,000 women, and 11,071 children under 12 years of age. This represented the three provinces of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, practically 90 per cent. of the mining population of India. I think I am quite justified in saying that to allay discontent in India we ought to show that we at least have some interest as the rulers in the conditions of the workers in the mines. Instead of discontent and disturbance we want to show the people that we have some interest in bringing about happiness and contentment amongst them. In the answers which were given on various occasions in the past by the Under-Secretary for India we could get no statistics as to the wages and the hours worked by these poor people in the mines of India, but I have since, learned that the hours of labour vary from 12 to 16 per day.
I ask this House to visualise in regard to mining conditions in India a man and his wife and child going to work in the pit, the child being under 12 years of age—how much under I do not know, but, at any rate, it is such an age that its mother can hardly have ceased singing lullabies to it. I know the hardships and dangers of mining, and I know that such work is only for strong, healthy men and youths. The idea at this time of women, no matter of what nationality, working in mines is a disgusting thing, and I am trying if possible to enlist sympathy in this House in respect to it.
In respect to another question we were told that the total number of accidents for the 10 years ending 1921 was 1,871 killed and 2,306 seriously injured. The figures for slight injuries were not given, and I think that would be fairly represented by many thousands. We have had later figures than that, and those which I shall give may not be quite as intelligible as I should like, but they are of a much later date, and they point out the shocking conditions under which the miners of India work. We are told in the official figures that for the year 1921 there were 240,663 persons working in and about the mines in India. In 1922 there were 228,511 persons working in and about mines in India, or a decrease of 21,152. We shall see how some of that decrease occurred in a few more figures
which I shall give to the House. The 220,000 persons working in and about mines included 137,017 who worked underground, and 91,494 who worked on the surface. Of that total 142,103 were adult workers, 78,806 were women workers and 7,602 were children under 12 years of age. During the year 1922, 243 persons lost their lives in the mines. They comprised 218 males, and 25 females, and, of those 218 males, we have to consider how many were poor little children under 12 years of age. We could get no figures showing how many of these children under 12 years of age had sacrificed their lives in the mines. We have also to consider that, in the year 1921, the total output was 18,358,934 tons. The fatal accident rate was 14 for every million tons raised. That, in comparison with our own rate, which is about 510 per million tons raised, shows the appalling death rate, and the shocking conditions under which these poor people have to work. We find also that, in India, there are 522 coal pits, which are worked by 252 coal companies with a paid-up capital of £5,681,000.
Attempts have been made in this House to ascertain the average dividends paid by these colliery companies in India. No figures could be obtained, but the statement was made in this House that some of the dividends were as high as 165 per cent. As I have said, we could get no official figures, and this was a figure stated by an hon. Member in a supplementary question that was put at the time. It appears to me, if one may say so, that, if these figures are correct, then, when enormous dividends like that are paid, it is time we took some interest in the life and safety of our Indian fellow-subjects. I understand that legislation is to come into force some time in July dealing with some of these conditions, and I am expecting and hoping that the Under-Secretary for India will give us some indication of what that legislation is going to be—whether or not it raises the age of the children, and whether or not it abolishes women's labour in the mines of India. I hope that in his statement, which I feel confident will be received with sympathetic interest, the Under-Secretary will give information on at least some of these matters. It is probable that, in this House of Commons, the statements that I have made may not be altogether believed. It may
be asked, "What does the hon. Member know about India? He has never been there?" All I can say is that I know what mining is, and I have endeavoured to visualise what the conditions of these people are; but I am going to read, from the Debates of the Indian Legislative Assembly on Saturday, the 15th March, 1924, what their own representative, Mr. Chaman Lal, says in reference to the conditions of the miners in India. He says:
I have been in the mine-fields, and found more destitution there than probably exists in any other centre in India. I saw women and children going about with bare rags on their backs.… I have seen such utter misery and destitution that unless something drastic is done you are up against a very difficult problem. The huts are ill-ventilated, with barely room for a cot and a fireplace; and all the worldly goods of these poor miners consist of just a few utensils, and hardly any clothing. Everywhere you go in the mine-field you meet the spectre of poverty.
I do not think I need read any further. That is what was said by one of their representatives in their own Assembly, and so the whole chapter goes on, pointing out the poverty, the destitution, the hardships, the extraordinary high accident rates in the mines of India, and the exceptionally high profits that have been made by the coal companies.
In conclusion, I would ask the House to think of those poor 25 women that in 1921 lost their lives in the mines, and of those little children that are taken into this most dangerous calling, which, as I have said, is only a calling for strong, healthy men and youths. I ask hon. Members to take into their mind's eye the conditions of destitution that are pointed out by this representative, and the miserable wages that are paid to the people. Probably I have not put their case as well as a more fluent man would, but I do hope that this Government will, as far as it possibly can, use its influence to get legislation brought in that may bring a better standard of life to these people, and, if possible, abolish women's labour, or at least make the age of the children such an age that they are strong enough to go into the mines. If that were done, it would, instead of the periodic outbursts of discontent that I have described, bring about happiness and contentment among the people, and they would be proud that they are under the
British flag and would have faith in the fairness and justice of this House of Commons.

Mr. MILLS: I beg to second the Motion. The House is indebted to the hon. Member who has tabled this Motion, not only for a very reasoned and moderate speech, but for a speech which was intensely human from beginning to end. I could not understand the smiles on the very sparsely populated benches opposite—

Captain Viscount CURZON: Do you mind saying who smiled?

Mr. MILLS: It was obvious to anyone who cared to look. I suggest that it was the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Sussex—

Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to me, let me deny, with the greatest emphasis and indignation, that I smiled at a single word of the well-reasoned and interesting speech that we have just heard. I think the hon. Member ought to withdraw what he said.

Mr. MILLS: If it be so, I will withdraw, but I have in mind what was supposed to be a Debate in this House of Commons, initiated at a quarter past eight a few weeks ago, when two hours and five minutes of the two hours and three-quarters was taken up by a very one-sided diatribe from the other side of the House, and, when the speaker from the Front Bench, with three minutes to go, rose to reply, he was not even allowed to put in a personal explanation, and the business closed in uproar. The echoes of that Debate created a very painful impression throughout the whole of our Indian Empire, and for that reason, and because of the facts which are coming through, I think the House is indebted to my hon. Friend for a very reasoned and very human speech, and I hope those who are going to reply will not reply in terms of denunciation of a quotation from someone's speech in 1852 or someone else who ought to be somewhere else at some other time, but will make some effort to reply, because we do not ask merely the opposite side to reply. We want the Government to reply, and we want to know what they intend to do. The advent of a Labour Government raised the highest possible hopes among 320,000,000 people, who for over 70 years have been promised that some day in the
dim and distant future they would be given the right of self government. Now, in 1924, we have the spectacle that the textile workers of Madras have sent a delegate to Britain to ask not for any revolutionary proposal, but merely that if a man earns a magnificent wage, the equivalent of £1 13s. 4d. per month, he might be allowed to vote. I suppose when the speakers attempt to make a case in Britain they will be denounced as some more of the sedition mongers who are coming over to upset the benefits of British rule. It is time a little plain speaking was undertaken.
We ask the first Labour Government that they realise immediately at least some of the economic disabilities of the Indian workers. I refer specifically to the incidence of the Salt Tax. We listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few days ago outlining a Budget which increased the spending values of the workers of Britain, and which reduced the amount of contribution they have been making weekly for years to taxes where in hundreds of cases they were too poor to pay direct Income Tax. We know that the Secretary of State for India, representing a Labour Government, held out some measure of hope that the British Labour Government had some idea of ameliorating the burden of the helpless section of India in reference to the Salt Tax. The Salt Tax has been with us from the days of John Company, from the days of the East India Company's exploitation of the peoples of India as the result of contracts with various Indian princes, and so on. This vicious principle has been carried on, and if one turns to the pages of history he will find as far back as 80 years ago the merchants of Northwich and of various parts of Great Britain protesting to the British Parliament that the British consumer could buy salt at 30s. a ton, whilst the poor devil of an Indian peasant has to pay at the rate of £21 a ton. If we take in for a moment the standard of living in other countries, where salt to them represents a real luxury and enables them to digest some of the most appalling forms of food which they are forced to eat as the result of their economic conditions, one will understand the amount of resentment which has been generated throughout India as the result of the forcing upon the Indian people, in spite
of the Indian Parliament's own wishes, not only the imposition of the salt tax, but the doubling of the salt tax last year in spite of the Opposition of the duly elected people of India in the Indian Government. The late Under-Secretary for India had to defend that last year, and he defended it very courteously and ably from the point of view of the Conservative Government, but, after all, he had to admit to various Members who were questioning him, who are now Members of the first British Labour Administration, that this doubling of the salt tax was necessary because of expenditure incurred largely due to military equipment in India, while in the same month another of his colleagues was glibly telling the House that part of the British reserves are borne by the Indian people, and that if this burden were taken off the Indian people, it would have to be borne by the British taxpayer.

Earl WINTERTON: Will the hon. Member be good enough to give his authority for this statement that I said this enhanced Salt Tax was due to military operations?

Mr. MILLS: I do not say the Noble Lord admitted that it was due to military operations, but I want him to deny that it was. Perhaps I am not putting my point very clearly. I have never yet heard a Conservative Government tell a Conservative working man that a vote for them meant a payment of 6d. in taxation on every ounce of tobacco that he bought. It is only when he is up against the proposition of denying it that we have any kind of sport at all. Here is an article, written by a candidate for the Nobel peace prize, His Highness the Aga Khan. I do not suppose the Noble Lord would denounce him as a Bolshevist agitator from the backwoods of Madras. He won a race the other day, and is hoping to win another. This gentlemen, one of the greatest ruling princes in India, has contributed to one of your big Sunday papers a four-column article. Here is what he says:
I do not write in defence of the Parliamentary Members of India, but I would point out that the core of the Indian case is this. The greater part of the expenditure of the central authority being for military purposes, and the Legislature having no control whatever over this expenditure,
it was felt that the whole budgetary provisions should be rejected in the spirit of the man who says, 'you have taken the cream and we do not want the skimmed milk.'
He goes on to say:
The Indian argument is that excessive defensive insurance is imposed upon her willy nilly in time of peace, and that she is required to make her preparations on a much wider wale proportionate to her resources than is made in Great Britain.
It is an article which ought to have been read by every Member of the House who is attempting to understand what are the basic causes behind the unrest in India. I do not want the sneer levelled at me that I have never been in India. It has been levelled at me and at others, and we have lived to see that those who claim to be experts on other countries where people are struggling to be free have had to admit that, in spite of all their martial law, in spite of all the burdens put upon the British taxpayer to keep order by martial law, they have found that on the withdrawal of martial law and with the autonomy of the people, as occurred in Egypt, there has been a cessation of rioting, and there is peace now where you never had it any day or at any moment under the imposition of martial law. Therefore I have not any great faith in a person who says. "I know all about it because I have been there." I want to ask either the representatives of the British Government or those who wish to defend the imposition of the Salt Tax to answer the points that have been put. My hon. Friend has put a series of figures dealing with the standard of living of the Indian miner. I have given a few figures dealing with the standard of living of the textile workers. If it were necessary I could give further figures proving what exactly is the standard of living and what exactly is the rate of profit. I do not want to do that, but there are many reasons that could be adduced as to why the wages are low. One very relevant reason is given in an extract from a financial paper published in Calcutta.
Labour troubles have moderated considerably. The Gurkha is an immediate cure for all labour troubles. The desire of evil-doers, even in our own Legislative Council, to get rid of them (the military) is a great tribute to their efficiency.
Wherever there is an attempt to raise the standard of living, the Gurkha is brought in. That is the evidence from
the financial paper of Calcutta. There are other financial journals which we could quote if there were time and need, and we will recite the quotations if any hon. Member opposite desires to make out that the British capitalist in India is striving against loss, and merely continues his investment in order to provide food and shelter for the Indian workers. The potential investor in India, like the investor in British railways in pre-War days, is always referred to either as a widow or an orphan urgently in need of dividends.
I hope that when a reply is made to the indictment put forward by my hon. Friend who moved the Motion, we shall get down to relevancies. The immediate urgency of the argument is that the British Labour Government are in a position to wipe out the doubling of the salt tax resisted by the whole Indian Parliament, and only imposed upon them by the act of authority expressly provided for by the Coalition Government in the framework of the Government of India Act, 1919. By the doubling of the salt tax there has been put upon the shoulders of the Indian people a burden of indirect taxation out of wages. They are paying Income Tax out of the miserable amount of £,1 13s. 4d. per month, and even out of the miserable wages of the miner of 7d. per day. When they buy their salt they have to pay out of these miserable wages double the amount of tax that they paid before the War. Every manifestation of protest on the part of the people is denounced as a Bolshevik tendency which ought to be put down.
I want to draw attention to the phenemona of latter-day politics. During the War the Indian soldier, the Sikh, the Pathan, and all the men who are now denounced as murderous revolutionaries were taken to France, and for the first time in the history of British rule they were taught to fight as white men and were taught that they were equal to white men. They were taught to suffer and die in France and Flanders like white men, and for the first time in the history of the Indian soldier they were given to understand that they were as good as the white men with whom they were fighting. There are photographs, which can be produced, of Indian soldiers coming back wounded and being taken to Brighton and sent to convalescent homes for Indian soldiers.
After being treated on terms of equality with white men, after fighting and dying on terms of equality with white men, you ask these men to leave Western ideas and customs aside, to forget all the glimpses that they had of an advanced status, and to go back to the old conceptions and the old ideas of pre-War days. It cannot be done, and it will not be done. Chains are bursting all over the world, and the people who stand in the way of those chains are likely to be hurt.
My best wishes go out to the Indian people, not in any attempt to achieve anything by violence, but in a reasonable attempt to get from the British Labour Government an immediate examination of the conditions of those who work for wages, and, as a result of working for wages, what is the amount of their contribution to the upkeep of the military commitments in India. That is the least that the British Labour Government can do. We hope that it will follow out what the Secretary of State for India said in the other House in relation to the Salt Tax. He said:
The Government of India decided that it was necessary they should, balance their Budget and that they could not balance their Budget without doubling the Salt Tax. When the Assembly threw out the Resolution doubling the Salt Tax, the Government of India had to certify, as is provided in the case of certain Crown Colonies as well as India, that this was essential in the public interest and that that Resolution must become law. That produced an unfortunate effect in India, as that kind of action always does. In my own experience, whenever it has been had recourse to in the Colonies, it has been held to be a direct slap in the face and stultification of what the elected Members in India and elsewhere consider to be the first principle of democratic government, that you shall not have taxation without representation and that the representatives of the people should decide in matters of taxation.
Here is something which the Under-Secretary of State for India might very well answer. We feel very anxious about the continued bearing of these burdens by our comrades in India, for this reason, that we know that whether it be in Germany, in Japan, in India, in France or elsewhere, if the standard of living of the workers in any part of the world is cut down it inevitably leads to the standard being cut down here. I would ask hon. Members opposite, whether they would refute the authority of the Presidential address at the 7th Indian Economic Conference
held in Bombay in January, 1924, delivered by the late Sir M. Visvesvaraya. This gentleman, giving an idea of what is happening, said:
The monthly income of the Indian people, I have just stated, is rupees 5 per head, or an equivalent of 7s. 6d. per head. This is the average, but the income of the poorest classes is of course much lower than this. The masses of the population are steeped in poverty bordering on destitution, poverty to which there is no parallel in Western countries. You will agree that a people with so low a record of literacy as 6 per cent. and so poor an income as rupees 5 per head per month cannot be said to be equipped for the struggle for existence, and yet our late Governor, Sir George Lloyd, in a speech he made in November last, before a meeting of the Associated Chambers in Bombay, read the situation in a very different light. Said Sir George: 'The more closely the situation is examined, the more amazed does the student become, not at India's poverty, but at her prosperity and wealth!'
I should like at this point to read an apt quotation from a speech made at a meeting of the Burmah Oil Company held at Glasgow. The meeting had been convened to discuss the iniquities of the Capital Levy, and Mr. G. L. Moore said:
I have come all the way from London to be present at this meeting, and I should feel myself full of ingratitude if I had not come, because I have made a sum of £20,000 within the last few months out of the Burmah Oil Company alone. (Laughter and applause.) And, Mr. Chairman, with the four shares that you give me now for every five shares held by me, I have about 900 shares that have cost me nothing. (Laughter.) I study a thing and work in scientific fashion so that loss is impossible.
[An HON. MEMBER: "A system!"] Systematic exploitation. Therefore, I hope the Under-Secretary will deal with all this evidence and give us some indication that the Secretary of State for India or the Government have under consideration the calling of this Royal Commission to inquire into the working of the Act and, if necessary, to make some alteration before 10 years. Mr. Montagu himself laid down that it would be possible within the framework of that Act to take action before 10 years. I submit that the problem of to-day is pressing. You are driving men into the action which is always taken by men in despair. When they have no articulate voice in the counsels of the nation they are driven into all kinds of assemblies which may be regrettable but which none the less are legal. I have no sympathy with the Communist movement in any part of the
world. The Communists are striving for my defeat in the Dartford Division of Kent unceasingly, but the Communist party of Great Britain, or Germany, or Russia or India are perfectly legal assemblies. I want the Under-Secretary of State for India to bear in mind the answer which he gave to a question, not orally, on which he could be further questioned, but in a written answer to the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). The Noble Lord asked:
What are the actual terms of the charge in the cases now being heard at Cawnpore against certain persons accused of sedition and in what Court is the case being taken?
The Under-Secretary of State for India replied:
The accused persons are charged of conspiracy to deprive the King of the Sovereignty of British India, an offence punishable under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code. I would like to make it quite clear that the accused persons are not being prosecuted merely for holding Communist views"—
I would ask the Under-Secretary to analyse that sentence. Does he mean that part of the prosecution is because they hold those views, and if not why did he make that statement?
or carrying on Communistic propaganda. They are charged with having conspired to secure by violent revolution the complete separation of India from Imperialistic Britain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1924; col. 944, Vol. 173.]
9.0 P.M.
So far as I and my friends are concerned, they know full well that the man who is despised in India because he is moderate is laughed to scorn in this House as an extremist. The men whose candidature in India was met by the native population with the counter-candidature of goats with things tied to their tails, as symbolising the kind of candidate they thought fit to oppose these men because they were constitutionalists and loyalists and wanted a gradual evolution within the framework of the British Constitution, are, when they come here or speak or write, condemned as irresponsible agitators by people who play into the hands of the extremists by every damping down of national aspiration. We have been turning out for two generations at Oxford, Cambridge, Glasgow and Edinburgh young men who have graduated in every
kind of science. They go back to India and they find the same thing that we found in Egypt, that always the best jobs are reserved for those eldest sons of certain people, and that always national aspirations are repressed, and always it is said that India or some other country is not ready. You may as well say to a young mother that she must not put her firstborn on the ground, because the baby is bound to fall over. Her reply would be, "If I do not put him on the ground he will never learn to walk."
The Indians, like every other race, are bound to make mistakes in their evolutions towards self-government, but it is our duty to help and not to hinder but to take, such action as will rob them of any incentive to go in for those short cuts which lead nowhere. The kind of propaganda that is going on in India, the alternative to the kind of plea that every representative man is making, can only end in disaster, and ultimately, not only in disaster to India, but in putting tremendous expense on the taxpayers of Great Britain, and in the losing of an enormous number of valuable lives in putting down disorder. It is because I feel, and all my colleagues on this side of the House feel, that this is a subject which should be met promptly and wisely, and, above all, with the entire certainty that it will give the Indian people confidence in the first British Labour Government, that I desire to second this Motion.

Mr. WARDLAW MILNE: I listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Resolution, and I wish to join my hon. Friend who seconded it in saying how indebted all Members who are interested in questions regarding India are to him, not only for taking this opportunity of raising this matter in debate, but also for the moderate and helpful manner in which he put his case before us. I rather wished, however, that the hon. Member who seconded the Motion, if he will forgive me for saying so, had associated his remarks a little more with the actual Motion upon the Paper, because I wanted very much to find out what was in the minds of hon. Members opposite in reference to this Motion when they suggest that a remedy for these troubles of which they speak so feelingly and
earnestly—with many of their statements I agree—could come about by the mere extension of the franchise in India. The hon. Member who seconded the Motion in advance asks us to be very careful, and not to say that he had not been in India. I may assure him that I have no intention of making that statement, but, if he will forgive me saying so, it is not, therefore, wrong to suggest that perhaps to those who have been in India, and have been there for a considerable number of years, the problem is not so simple as it appears to the hon. Gentleman.
Perhaps the House will allow me to give one or two facts regarding India, which probably all Members know, but which some perhaps may have forgotten. India comprises three-fourths of the British Empire. It has an area as large as the whole of Europe, excluding Russia, and a population as thickly spread as Europe. It is not one nation. It is a multitude of nations. It is not one people. It is a vast variety of peoples. When Members recollect that there are no fewer than 220 definite distinct languages in India, and that of the minor languages 23 are spoken by no fewer than a million people each, and when they further recollect that in parts of India the Indians themselves are unable to communicate with each other, except those few who can communicate in English, it will be realised that you must not deal with the conditions in India as the basis of any comparison with conditions such as exist in Great Britain. Not only have you a vast variety of languages and religions, but the peoples of India are divided among themselves to a far greater extent even than the peoples of Europe. There is no more of racial kinship between, let us say the Sikh or the Gurkha and the Madrasi or the Bengali, than there is between the Scandinavian and the South Italian, or just as little as there is between hon. Members opposite who, like myself, come from North of the Tweed and, let us say, the Spaniard or the Portugese. There is an absolute difference in every possible way.
Then there is the great question of caste. You cannot ignore it. You have over 2,000 castes. Caste has grown up through hundreds and hundreds of years, and if any of us has the idea that caste can be removed by a stroke of the pen or
by an Act of Parliament, let him put that idea aside at once. Caste has grown up probably through thousands of years, and it will certainly take hundreds of years to pass away. I hear an hon. Member say that it is passing, and no one will contradict him. But it must take a very long time. I would draw attention to a recent report of the conditions in the native State of Travancore, where attempts have been made—this is not in British India—to open the roads near the temples for the use of the depressed classes. That scheme, supported presumably by the State itself, has had to be abandoned and the State troops called out to keep order. You will see that it is a problem which the educated part of India has to face long before we have to face it. If you can visualise an England in which neither the brewer, nor the agricultural labourer, nor the charwoman, nor the fisherman, nor many others, can send a child to school, or use certain public roads that are respectable, or enter a church, you will get some idea of the bar in India. It is essential that we remember those conditions when we deal with the vast question of labour in the factories and on the land of India.
We constantly see in the Press, and occasionally here in this House, the expression "The voice of India," There is no voice of India. The only voice of India, apart from that expressed by the Government of India, is the voice of a few educated men, partially educated or very highly educated in some cases. I do not suggest for a moment that that voice should not be listened to; far from it. In every case the educated must lead the uneducated. But it is foolish to talk about the voice of all India. It is not very clear from the speeches in support of this Motion, except in the case of the Mover, who dealt with mines, whether hon. Members opposite wish to confine their suggestions particularly to mines and factories, or whether they are dealing with labour conditions as a whole. The first point to consider is this: The population of India has grown since 1872 from 206,000,000 to 319,000,000, which does not look as if British rule was such a bad thing after all. If that population is to be considered as a whole, it is well to remember that 72 per cent. of it is on the land. India is pre-eminently an agricultural
country, and the first factor in the prosperity of India is the prosperity of the land.

Mr. MILLS: Have the peasants or the farmers votes?

Mr. MILNE: I will come to that in a moment. As I said, 72 per cent. of the people live on the land. The conditions of the agriculturists in India are very difficult, perhaps, for some of us to understand. The greatest drawback to the agriculturist is the land system. Division and sub-division of land has been carried to an almost incredible degree. In a recently published report—it is published by the Government of India and is public property—it is stated that the average agriculturist does not work on an acreage above three acres, that he does not work more than about 150 days in the year, that he is busy during his ploughing and during his harvest, but that for the rest of the year he has little or nothing to do. That state of affairs is caused, partly, by the tremendous sub-division of land. It would not be in order now to go into details which I could give as to divisions which I have seen, but they are almost incredible in their minuteness. There is a great attachment to the land, but that sub-division has a great deal to do with the poverty of the agriculturist.
Let us bear in mind the true proportions of the case. The agriculturist in India is not the agriculturist at home. His wants are very few. It is probably right, to say that in time his wants may be more and should be more; I do not deny that. But his wants to-day are very few. He knows very little of the amenities of life. He has, certainly, no education, or, practically, none, and, being in that condition, wants none. I do not say that that is right, but there the fact is. You cannot expect a person who has never had any education and has never seen any advantages from it to want it. The Indian agriculturist lives in a totally different country, under totally different conditions of climate, food and everything else. The most that we can hope to do in the immediate future, with the great mass of the people of India, is to try to help them gradually to get out of debt. The great curse of the Indian people is the fact that the marriage and the funeral services and all the ceremonies connected therewith
are so deadly expensive, according to their standard of living. The consequence is, that you have men who were born and who have lived and died in debt. They have taken on the debt of their fathers before them; they carry it on and increase it and die in debt. They know no other conditions. That is the first move which we can make towards bringing about better conditions. It will mean the very slow spreading of education.
It is possible that the Seconder of this Motion was more concerned with the conditions in the factories of India. Only 10 per cent. of the people of India are concerned with the factories. Of course, of 320,000,000 people that is a large number, but it is a small proportion of the population. The factories question is a totally different one from that of agriculture. In the great jute mills of Calcutta and in the cotton mills of Bombay, which are the largest groups of factories, there is no settled permanent labour at all, speaking generally. The labourer who works in the factories of India is first and foremost an agriculturist. He is driven into the towns, or goes there in the hope of greater gain, and as a result he gradually becomes a townsman. But in many cases he remains a countryman. At some period or other in the year he goes back to his native village, tills his own bit of soil, and still retains an interest in his own plot of land. That puts him in a category totally different from that of the factory worker in this country.
I am not going to suggest that, compared with English workers, the factory worker in India is as well off, because any such comparison is ridiculous. I am not even going to suggest that the factory worker in India should not be much better off under Indian conditions than he is, but let us look at the facts as they stand. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion spoke of a lowering of the standard. It is not the case that the standard has gone down at all. The standard has gone up very considerably, as is proved by the Government publications which are accessible to all Members of the House. The fact of the matter is that since pre-War days the standard of wages in India has gone up, and the real wages have gone up by over 17 per cent. Of course, the cost of living has gone up,
along with the wages, but the wages have gone up higher, making a real gain of 17 per cent., which is material. To-day, a weaver in a Bombay mill earns from 40 to 70 rupees a month. Hon. Members may take it that these figures are quoted officially. I admit that is not a very large sum. Of that sum he spends roughly 52 per cent. in food, because food has gone down considerably in India in the last year or two. Strangely enough, that is almost exactly the same proportion as is spent on food by the worker in this country.
In the case of clothes, perhaps naturally, the worker in India spends considerably less. Reference has been made to these people being in rags. I do not for a moment suggest that they should remain in rags and I think it very desirable that they should be properly clothed, but I ask hon. Members to recollect that the climatic conditions are somewhat different, and I do not think there would be any great expenditure on clothing above what is carried on at the present time, oven if the wages were raised very considerably. There is this further curious fact that in housing, the Indian worker spends almost exactly the same proportion as the English worker. The housing conditions are very bad indeed. The housing conditions in Bombay, as I very well know, have constituted one of the greatest problems which the Bombay Government have had to face in the last 30 or 40 years, but very great works are being carried out in that connection, and the Development Directorate, the Improvement Trust and the Municipality hope by 1929 to have erected chawls or tenements for 200,000 workers, which is one-sixth of the total population of the city.
In the case of the Bombay Port Trust, who employ something like 11,000 workmen, they have provided housing for nearly half that number, so that there is a great movement going on. The mill owners have also done a great deal to help the solution of the problem. The housing conditions are extremely bad, owing to the congested nature of the island on which these great factories have been built up. This great problem can only be dealt with on a huge scale, but it is now being dealt with in more than one direction. In the Report recently submitted by the Government, there is the
curious, though perfectly correct, statement that an increase in wages does not necessarily mean greater efficiency. Strangely enough in India, possibly for want of education, there is no desire to save, and there is no particular desire to do any more work than is absolutely necessary—a desire which I admit is shared in other lands. The consequence is that where you have increased payment at present very often you have a condition in which the workmen will only work for four instead of six days and idle the rest. It is usually said that the art of living in idleness is very difficult to acquire, but I think I am not exaggerating when I say that the Indian native has not so far found any difficulty in acquiring it. He has not been trained to work in the same way as the workman at home, and the consequence is one finds that during a working day in the factory there is a great deal of time for various reasons spent outside the actual workshop.
In addition, there is a great deal of absenteeism, the last figures being 17 per cent., which is a very large figure. That is no doubt caused by climatic conditions in which the work is carried on, and to some extent by the want of training. But if we compare these conditions with those of a country like Japan, we find that the workman in India is better paid, that there is much less female labour employed in India, and that his hours of work are much shorter in India. The hours of work are laid down under the Factory Act as 60 per week, and a holiday must occur within every 10 days. These hours are longer than at home, but it is interesting to note that in a Report just published at Simla on the working of the Factory Act, it is stated that a large number of factories are only working 48 hours a week, and in the case of children, whose hours are limited to 36 hours a week, many are only working 36 hours a week. Conditions are gradually improving. The next point which I bring to the notice of the House is that the factory worker is not so efficient as the worker in Great Britain, and cannot hope to be, although perhaps he will be in 100 years. In India one male weaver in a cotton mill minds two looms, while a girl in Lancashire will mind six. It will be found—and this fact was quoted by an Indian who was a colleague of the hon. Members opposite in the last
Parliament—that the ratio is something like 2½ to 1 or, in other words, 2½ people are required in India to do the work which one person does in this country.
It is a totally different standard, and I only point out these facts to show that we cannot possibly compare conditions in Lancashire or Dundee with conditions in Bombay and Calcutta. The condition of the worker, if we compare his income and expenditure on the essentials of life, is not so materially worse than the condition of the workman in other countries. It is no use comparing the £ with the rupee, or the earnings in this country with the earnings in India. It is a truism that wealth is not what you have in token money, but what the money will buy, and the Indian worker's expenditure pro rata on essentials compares not unfavourably with this country and France, and I do not think they are so very much below the conditions of the worker here. I do not mean to suggest by that that their conditions should not be improved. I now desire, to say a word on the question of mines. I am not as well acquainted with the mining position in India as the factory conditions, but I know something of mining, and I have here an extract from a report published in Simla by the official who is, I think, termed the Mining Superintendent under the Government of India. He states that in the United Kingdom, in 1921, the death rate per 1,000 was 1.36 among people, employed underground. The corresponding Indian rate was 1.46. This is the point where I entirely agree with my hon. Friend opposite. He proceeds:
But per million tons raised it was 11.50 in India compared with 5.19 in the United Kingdom.
Then he goes on to say:
It is estimated that about one-third of the accidents in India are caused by the fault of the people injured and only 9 per cent. due to the fault of the management of the mines. The Indian suffers from his stupidity.
It is natural it should be so if you realise that those people have not been trained to mining from their childhood. Very often it is imported labour; above ground labour in many cases. They go into the mines knowing very little about them, and are in a different category from the highly trained people of this country. There is the greatest necessity for increasing
the safeguards that can be taken. It is well to realise that there are great difficulties owing to the fact that the people themselves are entirely unacquainted with mining in many cases. This Resolution is to associate with the conditions described to-day a desire for an extension of the franchise, presumably with the idea that, if you extend the franchise, these conditions will improve. Is there any ground for that belief? It is not that I oppose an extension of the franchise, but it is useless to suggest that the people of India are in the position in which we can give them widespread franchise. The franchise to-day in India is a mere flea-bite. There are 6,000,000 voters out of 319,000,000, but as far as the property qualification goes it is not very I high, about £2 per annum. It is rather interesting to notice that this very question of the representation of the wage earners was dealt with by a Committee of the Government of India. I wish to refer to only one part of their Report. They decided that it was useless to go on extending the franchise to the wage earners, immediately at any rate—
In arriving at this decision I share the belief of the Government of India that the steady rise in prosperity of manual workers in India, and the rapid improvement of their housing conditions, will automatically and without undue delay result in qualifying the great majority of their numbers for the ordinary vote in the ordinary constituencies. No other solution than this could be regarded as satisfactory.

Mr. HOPE SIMPSON: Does that refer to the whole of India?

Mr. MILNE: As far as I know it did. I am not absolutely certain on that point. This question which has been raised tonight brings up again the whole question of the present, franchise condition and of the Act under which India is at present governed. I want to draw attention to the fact that we had one of the most eminent Indians speaking in the Empire Parliamentary Association just a year ago, the honourable Mr. Srinivasa Sastri. Mr. Sastri began, his speech by saying this:
Let me say, to begin with, that these reforms have, in my judgment, worked well; they have gone far to reconcile India to Great Britain and they have further shown that Parliamentary institutions, if adapted with care, can be worked to the great benefit both of India and of the Empire.
Later on he dealt with the feeling of regret in India that things were not moving faster. But if we are going to consider the future, I think it is fair to say that there are two views, one held in India and one held in Great Britain, both of which are entirely and utterly wrong. Some people in this country hold the view that India is in a state of seething unrest, that the people of India are desirous of getting this franchise, and if they get it they think everything will be well. There is no such condition. There is a very strong moderate opinion in India, which it is the duty of this country to back up in every possible way. In India, on the other hand, there is a curious view of the reforms in the Act of 1919, that they are not intended to be anything but a sham, that there is something behind it all, and that we do not intend to go ahead in granting India the reforms set out in the Preamble to that Act. I would like to make perfectly clear that for my part, and I believe on the part of the whole House of Commons, and, indeed, of the British people, there is no intention of this country being stampeded by any action which may be taken by a few extremists in India, or by many extremists if you like. The great number of people in India have no desire whatever to see the pace go faster than is safe. Our duty lies, not with the few educated, but with the vast number of people who cannot speak for themselves. I am most anxious that we in this House should make it clear, first, that no amount of opposition to the Government of India, no attempt to wreck the reforms by constant obstruction in the Councils, will have the slightest hope of success.
I also want to make it perfectly clear—90 per cent. of the House of Commons will agree with me—that we do not wish for one moment to stop India's progress towards self-government in the end. We have no business whatever to put any stone in the path of the legitimate aims which the Indian people rightly hold. The idea that a scheme of constant obstruction will jockey the British people into going faster than they think right and necessary is doomed to failure. Many Members have probably seen in the "Daily Telegraph" to-day the statement from India that apparently Mr. Ghandi, I am glad to say, seems to be considering
the necessity of working in co-operation with the British people to bring about aims he has so long advocated. The greatest school for responsibility is responsibility itself. You cannot go faster in this matter than the Indian people will let you. The rate of progress in the question of reforms in India is not laid down in the end by the British people, but by the Indian people, and I feel certain that those of you who, like myself, do not like dyarchy, will feel that this is not a time to raise the question of whether we did right in 1919, or whether we did wrong. We have to accept the fact that the Act was a signal of co-operation, a gesture, to use the now common word, of co-operation and good will to the Indian people. The British people to-day are still holding out a hand to India. All we say is you must co-operate. You must work with us in such a way as will encourage us to believe that you are ready for a further step. Ten years is nothing in the life of a nation, especially in the life of a nation like India. The idea that the European will leave India, or should leave India, is ridiculous. India, owes a very great deal to the British race, and the Indian people as a whole know it quite well. I think it is marvellous the spirit in which the Indian Civil Service and the members of the other services in India have done their utmost to work in the spirit and the letter of the reforms laid down by the Act of 1919. They have had immense difficulties, very little understood in this country.
As for the great business houses in India, they have their part to play, and, after all, we owe India entirely to the spirit of the merchant adventurers who brought our occupation about. They have great possibilities, and they are doing an immense work in India, just as is being done by these great Parsee industrialists in Bombay and elsewhere. An hon. Member opposite referred to the great dividends paid by some of these mines, but I think there are plenty of Members, on this side of the House, at any rate, who could point to years in which the Indian mines have had very poor times indeed. That applies to every industry. I could tell you of times in which the cotton mills of Bombay have been extremely prosperous, and I could tell you of times when they have been in the depths of depression. It is useless
to take one dividend and to say, "This is an example of what the Indian mines are doing."
India to-day has a debt of £500,000,000, the total debt of an area the size of Europe, excluding Russia, with a population of 319,000,000, after, I suppose, 100 years of occupation. Something like 4s. 10d. per head—not in the £, but per head—is the taxation of India, and out of that £500,000,000 practically two-thirds of it is immediately productive debt, works of great value to India. She is in the most wonderful financial position of any country in the world. Based on national standards of finance, the position of India is unassailable; she is in as strong a position as, if not in a stronger position than, any country in the world. I have no desire that anything I say should ever be construed as an obstacle in the way of India moving forward in the path that certainly lies clear ahead. I want her to do that. I want to find this spirit of unrest, provided it is expressed constitutionally. Provided it is expressed constitutionally, it will do good and not harm. We have to listen, and rightly, to the voice of those who claim to speak for India, even although, as I have said earlier, it is impossible to hear the real voice of India at all.
If I may give one personal story, I shall never forget the first morning I spent in India, now a good many years ago. I had as "my guide, philosopher, and friend" on that morning what I suppose to-day would be described as a good old hard-baked colonel of that wonderful corps, the Indian Staff Corps, and I remember that he led me out to where, outside the suburbs, in the fields, there were working men bent double, working on the ground. He looked over these people, and he said, "Do not forget, my boy, that these are the real people of India. These are the people you are responsible for, whether you are in the Government service or in any other service; as a European, these are the people you have to think of." It would not be right, perhaps, to tell the second part of the story, but, with the indulgence of the House, I will do so. When we got back, he said, "Now, as to yourself, you will be told that you must not do this and you must not do that in India. You must not make a friend of the sun"—
that is quite true—"and do not make an enemy of him, either. Also, you will be told what you must eat and what you must drink. Take my advice, drink only whisky and soda, and drink as much of that as you can get." There is some sense in it, too, because there are great dangers from drinking things there that would possibly pass muster in this country.
I want to end on this note: We have to realise that those people for whom we are responsible are moving forward very, very slowly. The path is in front of them, and we want to encourage them along it. We do not want to stop their progress, but we want to make it perfectly clear that it is only by co-operation with this country, it is only by working together, it is only by showing us that they have profited by the stage of evolution to which they have arrived, that these reforms so far given can be worked to the advantage of Great Britain and of India, that the people are gradually being able to take a greater share in their own Government, that we can possibly look for that development which I, for one, believe lies in front of India, as still the greatest and most wonderful jewel in the English crown.

Mr. HERBERT FISHER: From every quarter of the House Members will, I am sure, agree with me in expressing my congratulations to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Milne) for the extremely interesting and well-informed contribution which he has just made to our Debate. The House always listens with peculiar pleasure to Members who can bring so much first-hand knowledge to bear upon the subject under discussion. I cannot pretend to vie with the hon. Member in his extensive and profound acquaintance with Indian matters. I merely intervene in this discussion because, having been associated with Mr. Montagu in the passage of the Government of India Bill through this House, I have a not unnatural interest in its fortunes. I do not wish in any way to quarrel with the interest which is displayed by Members of the Labour party in industrial conditions in India. I think that interest is very natural, I think it is very wholesome, and for myself, if I may be allowed to say so, I admire the tone and the sincerity of the speech of the hon. Member for the Rother Valley (Mr.
Grundy), who introduced this Motion. He has obviously been affected, as we all are affected, by the spectacle of poverty, wherever it may present itself, and it is very natural that he should desire to draw the attention of this House to the condition of a population in whose fortunes we Englishmen are all so deeply interested.
But, as I listened to the speeches of the hon. Proposer and Seconder of this Motion, I began to wonder whether they were a ware of an agency which at present exists for the purpose, not only of drawing attention to industrial conditions in India, but of toning up the industrial legislation in the Indian Government. I allude to the International Labour Bureau, which is associated with the League of Nations, and which has already drawn the attention of the Government of India and of the Provincial Governments to the condition of the factories in India, the conditions under which the factory hands work, and, as a result of this intervention and of these representations, very considerable improvements have already been effected in the industrial legislation of this great dependency. I would suggest to hon. Members on the Labour Benches that if they wish to bring further pressure to bear in any direction for the purpose of improving Labour conditions in India, they should direct their attention to the International Labour Bureau at Geneva.
Let me pass from the earlier part of this Motion to its concluding passage. I think, if I may say so, that nobody reading the Motion before the House would have inferred from its terms that the conditions and wages of labour in India had recently experienced an improvement. I think we should all have gathered from those terms that things were very serious, and much more serious than they have hitherto been, but as we have just heard, on the unimpeachable authority of the hon. Member opposite, that is very far from being the case. There has been a substantial improvement; not, indeed, an improvement to the extent and in the measure we should all desire. Still, there has been very substantial improvement of late, and there is no reason to suppose that that improvement will not continue. But when we come to the concluding passage of the Motion, we are brought up against the remedy which is proposed
by the hon. Member. What is that remedy? It is that, in order to improve industrial conditions in India, representation should be secured for the workers and peasants of India, both in the Assembly and in the various legislative councils, and, in the speech of the Seconder of this Motion, we were adjured to hasten up the reforms.

Mr. MILLS: To establish a Royal Commission to inquire into them.

Mr. FISHER: To establish a Royal Commission to inquire into them. May I, first of all, observe that the reforms themselves were very substantial in character? I was travelling round India just before the War. I was there in two successive years as a member of a Commission to examine into the public Services of India, and we found wherever we travelled a very great deal of interest, both among Hindus and among the Moslem communities, in the Indianisation of the Services, and we had considerable pressure put upon us to provide for a larger admission of Indians in the higher branches of the Services of India. But if anybody had told us that within the course of a very few years the principle of responsible government would have been extended to India, that we should have a Legislative Assembly at Delhi with a non-official majority, that in all the Provinces of India very important Departments of Government would have been handed over to Indian Ministers, I think that would have been regarded as almost beyond the dreams of avarice. What happened? The War came. India came forward and made a splendid contribution in the War, and the loyalty of India was warmly and deeply appreciated all over the British Empire. One of the results of that was the famous Cabinet announcement in favour of the extension of responsible government to India. We thought then, and I still think, we were right, that it would be fairest to India, it would be most to the advantage of India, that the process of developing the principle of responsible government in India should proceed by gradual and well-marked stages. After all, when we interrogate our own history, it was many centuries before we developed our Parliamentary system, our system of Party government, our system of Parliamentary Convention. It was a very long process, and it was a very difficult process.
And hero we were asking India—India which only lately had been introduced to the methods and ideals of Western civilisation—to accept from us one of the most complicated and difficult products of Western civilisation, and to work it effectually for the good of India.
I say that it was to the interest of India that this great experiment should be gradually and safely developed. The hon. Member who moved, and the hon. Member who seconded, desire a Royal Commission in order to accelerate the progress of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. There has been a good deal of criticism as to the working of those reforms. There has been a good deal of disappointment both in India and in England as to the effectiveness of this great scheme of Parliamentary government. But let me remind the House that the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms were carried out at a very critical and very difficult period of Indian history. There was the Caliphate agitation. There was the Turkish War. There was the War taxation. There was the revolt in the Punjab. There was the terrible and melancholy calamity of Amritsar. There were the difficult economic conditions which were created by the War. Those circumstances made the atmosphere as difficult as possible for this great constitutional development, and I say we must not judge of its success by our experience during the last few years. I have read a good many of the Debates in the Legislative Assembly in India. I think there is a great deal of first-rate political promise displayed in it; but do not let us go too fast. There is at present a Committee in India, appointed by the Government of India, which is engaged in examining the working of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms. It is true it is not a Royal Commission; it is an Indian Government Committee. Let us wait, at any rate, for its Report. Then, again, there has been another very important Commission working in India. There is the Lee Commission on the Public Services. The Report of the Lee Commission is not yet published, but rumour says that it is a unanimous Report, that, in other words, it has received the assent, not only of the English members of the Commission but also of the Indian members of the Commission If that,
indeed, be so, I trust that a Report, supported by both sides unanimously, by Indians and Englishmen, will be put into force.
If we have in this Report, as I hope and trust we shall have, a solution of the public service problem quite acceptable to the English public and to the Indian public, surely we may leave the matter to rest there for a little? I think really hon. Members on the Labour Benches, after what we have heard from the other side of the House to-night, must realise that there is no immediate prospect of an amelioration of industrial conditions in India likely to flow from an extension of the franchise. Such an extension may be a very good thing. I hope, indeed, that the franchise may, in due course, be extended in India. I hope that in due course these liberties may be widened in India, but I do submit in all confidence that there is no necessary or probable relation between an improvement in Indian industrial conditions on the one hand, and such an expansion of the franchise as is contemplated on the other hand, in this Motion. If you wanted to throw the apple of discord into India to paralyse the progress of moderate, sensible, industrial legislation, I cannot conceive any method more efficacious than the expansion of an electorate of 6,000,000 into an electorate of 300,000,000. That is a revolution which really no sane man can contemplate. Those are the few observations which I wish to offer.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): The House will agree with me in welcoming an opportunity of discussing on this occasion matters connected with India. I should like to join my tribute to that already paid to the hon. Member who opened the Debate on his speech of this evening. I am afraid I cannot extend the same tribute to the Seconder. The hon. Member said that we might at least be relevant, but it is a long time since the House listened to so delightfully irrelevant a speech as that of the hon. Member who seconded the Motion. I think the explanation is that the speech was prepared for another occasion to that on which it was given, and that the hon. Member considered that this was an opportunity of bringing it out, and having intended to give it, he brought it down to the House. I should like to point out also that he
is a little bit unjust in his criticism of the Salt Tax, because I would remind the House that, although it is true that the Salt Tax was certified last year, hon. Members will be aware of the fact that the Salt Tax is now back to its former figure. That has taken place quite recently under the certification powers exercised by the Viceroy.
10.0 P.M.
It seems to me that the Resolution, as has been pointed out by the previous speakers, divides itself into two parts, one dealing with the conditions of labour in India and the other with the extension of the franchise as a means of the amelioration of those conditions The Government has every sympathy with the motive, as I am sure has every Member of the House, that has prompted the Resolution as emphasising the desire, universal in this House, for an improvement of industrial conditions in India, and as showing a new interest in the very intricate problems of Indian representation. I should also like to add that the India Office particularly welcome the increased interest in Indian industrial matters, as shown by the large number of questions now appearing on the Order Paper, sometimes, perhaps, to the confusion and discomfiture of the Under-Secretary who has to give the answers.
I would remind hon. Members that the introduction of the Montagu-Chelmsford reforms, have had this important result, that amongst the transferred subjects industry must now be included. I remember in a speech I made in this House on a previous occasion I tried to make it clear that certain subjects are now transferred to the Provincial Governments in India. Amongst the subjects so transferred is this difficult question of industry. This means the administration of the Factory Acts, the settlement of labour disputes, housing, and the general welfare of the labourers is entirely the concern of the Provincial Governments. The Minister, in addition, is responsible for the policy which is to be pursued in the matter of granting assistance to industry generally, and the development of technical and industrial education. So that the Minister of a Provincial Government in India, at the present time, has his hands pretty full. If these subjects have been transferred,
as they have to the Indian Minister, it means that the Secretary of State in Council neither receives reports on these questions, nor is he in a position to give effective instruction in regard to them, and the Under-Secretary knows this very well, because he occasionally finds that Members of this House know unofficially a great deal more than he himself knows officially. I think it will be generally agreed, according to the terms of this Resolution, that the hon. Members who moved and seconded have in mind chiefly industrial conditions in India. I think it is important, as the hon. Member who spoke from the benches opposite pointed out, that we should realise that industry, after all, plays a comparatively unimportant part in the life of India at the present moment. I have comparative figures. They are very instructive, and possibly the House will bear with me while I give some of them. Let me give comparative figures of the percentages employed in industry in India and the percentage of those employed in this country.
If we take the United Kingdom, first of all we find that 58 per cent. of our population is engaged in industry, against 12 per cent. in India. On the other hand, if you take agriculture you find that only 8 per cent. of our population are engaged in agricultural pursuits, whereas in India nearly 72 per cent. are engaged in agriculture. When we come to the particular question of mining, which has often been referred to to-night, we find the percentage of the population in India engaged in that industry is not really a percentage: it is two per 1,000 of the total population. It is, I think, important that we should put the problem of Indian industry in its right perspective, and when we speak of the conditions of labour in India, we ought, as one hon. Member who spoke on the other side suggested, to visualise this fact: that India is predominantly an agricultural country, and, secondly, an industrial country. That is to say, the unit of economic life in India is not the factory or the mine, but the self-sufficing village, where almost every craftsman is represented by his caste. It is interesting to find that we have an almost complete analogy in the history of our own manorial villages in the early middle ages, where you have almost every craftsman
represented by what was virtually a caste, although generally known in this country as a guild system.
If we look into the figures with regard to India, we find that, out of the total population of 318,000,000, 217,000,000 are concerned with agriculture. There are 8,000,000 landowners; there are 167,000,000 tenants or occupying owners; there are 41,000,000 farm servants, nearly equal to the total population of these islands, and, more or less 1,000,000 estate agents and managers. It is true, as some hon. hon. Members remarked, that this village autonomy is gradually breaking down, and there are various and very interesting reasons for the breakdown of village autonomy in India. First of all, there is the growth of individualism, as we call it, that indefinable something which we sometimes, I suppose, call Liberalism: and, secondly, there is the gradual growth of the money economy, that is, the substitution of money payment for the perquisites that the craftsmen originally enjoyed for doing their work. Thirdly, as you can imagine, there is the introduction of Western manufactured goods. The interesting thing is, that the breakdown of our own village communities can be traced to almost exactly the same causes as are beginning to operate in India at the present moment. But I notice one interesting fact which the figures bring out, and it is that, curiously enough, owing to an increase in the price of agricultural produce, there is a tendency for the village craftsman to take, up agriculture. There is a movement in India from the village on to the land, instead of, as in this country, in many cases, from the village to the towns. I was very much interested in what the hon. Member said with regard to the question of the growth of co-operation. It is quite obvious that, if we are going to get an improvement in the productivity of Indian agriculture, it can only come through the increase of co-operation.
I have detained the House in order to try to give a picture of the native economy of India—the self-sufficing village, whose economy has been threatened by the introduction of Western methods. It is in that kind of environment that Western industrial methods have been recently introduced. I am sure all of us in this House hope that the Indian peasant will
be spared the uprooting policy—which was nothing but theft, in my opinion, masquerading under the guise of law in the supposed interest of a more efficient system of production—which has practically robbed our peasants in these islands of every right which they formerly possessed to the soil which they cultivated. It is to be hoped, at any rate, that the breakdown of the Indian village economy will not result in the robbing of the peasants of their right to the very small holding they have, to which reference has been made to-night, and which so tremendously increased the tragedy of industrial revolution in these islands. It is to be hoped, in the second place, that India, at any rate, will be spared some, at least, of the horrors of the industrial revolution as we knew it in this country. If I may say so respectfully, one has very much sympathy with Mr. Gandhi's backward look in the interests not only of his own people but of the Western people as well. But if India is to become a great industrial nation, and I believe she will—indeed she is that already for we have heard to-night from the right hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher), she is recognised as one of the great industrial nations of the world—I am sure that the industrial experience of this country will prove invaluable to India when she comes to accept Western industrial methods.
There is one other thing to which I should like to make reference when one studies Indian problems generally, that is the amazing poverty of the workers in India, to which sufficient reference has already been made to-night. The potentialities of India seem to me to be incalculable, but the poverty is almost inconceivable. Let me give a few figures that will bring this out. The average wealth of the population per head in India, dividing the total wealth of the community among the number of inhabitants, is something like 180 rupees; in Canada it is 4,400 rupees; in this country it is 6,000 rupees. The same thing is borne out by a comparison of incomes. The average annual income in India, taking the average income of the whole of the inhabitants, rich and poor, is just 60 rupees, five rupees per month, as we have heard to-night. In Canada it is something like 550 rupees. In this country the average income is 720 rupees. It would take me too long to attempt, even if I
could, to explain the causes of the excessive poverty of India, but I would like just to make this one remark: that people living in this way on the verge of existence, so to speak, can very easily be depressed below it, and that is the almost continual experience of India, because, unfortunately, nature does frequently depress these unfortunate people below even the margin of subsistence. There are one or two other considerations with regard to the excessive poverty of these people, which tends rather to perpetuate itself. First of all, there is the great lack of capital in India. There is no doubt at all, if you examine these figures, that there is a close co-relation between the amount of wealth in any country and the average earnings of the individuals living there. It seems to me that the standard of living in India cannot be very greatly improved until the amount of capital available there is very greatly increased. [Interruption.] I am not suggesting, of course, that the capitalist system, as we know it, should be introduced into India; but there is a fundamental distinction, it seems to me, between the necessity for capital, and the introduction of the abominable capitalist system. [Interruption.] There is no denying the fact that with conditions such as you get in India, where men depend on the cultivation of the soil particularly, some means must be found for setting a much larger amount of capital than is available at the present time. I thoroughly agree with the suggestion made that the question of debt is another very serious matter and ought to be tackled immediately. The standard of living in the rural parts of India is really so low that the people are driven almost against their will to work in these factories. I want to point out that the excessive poverty naturally drives a large number of these people willy-nilly to the factories. The tendency is to perpetuate low wages, and under these conditions the owners will not pay higher wages while they can get these people to come in and work in their factories.
Turning to the industrial population, India has 14,000,000 people still engaged in the cottage industry, and the lot of these people is even more tragic than the people who are actually working under factory conditions, because they are attempting to work by hand and to compete with modern machinery. It is
the old story of the Lancashire weaver over again, who finds that his hand labour has to compete in efficiency and speed with the work of modern machinery. The position of these 14,000,000 workers is parlous in the extreme.
I now come to industrial wages, of which we have heard a great deal this evening. It is very difficult, in my opinion, to give any statistics of wages which are satisfactory when the conditions are so diverse as they are in different parts of India. The only scientific statistical inquiry that has been carried out in any particular industry was the one carried out in 1921 in Bombay into the cotton industry. The Returns in that case refer to 194,000 employés, that is to say, more than 80 per cent. of the total number of people employed in the industry. I will give the weekly earnings in English figures, although I quite agree that they are somewhat misleading, because it is impossible to compare them with the standard of living in India with which they ought to be compared.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will you also give us the hours of labour per week?

Mr. RICHARDS: I have attempted to divide the question in this way, because I wish to deal with wages first, and then I will deal with the conditions of labour, including the hours. In May, 1921, the weekly earnings, in English money, in the Bombay factories, according to this very careful investigation, worked out as follows: A man, on an average, earned 10s. 3d.; a woman, 5s. 1d.; big lads and children, 5s. 3d., the average being 8s. 10d. a week. As I have suggested, these figures are very interesting when they are compared with pre-War figures and the figures obtaining in other countries, and when they are compared with the increases that have taken place in the cost of living in the meantime. We get this as a result, that the nominal wages in 1921 in Bombay were 196, compared with 100 in 1914, while the nominal wages in the United Kingdom were 211; that is to say, in the United Kingdom in 1921 they had more than doubled as compared with 1914, while in Bombay they had not quite doubled. But if you take the cost of living in the two countries, and correct these figures, you will then find that the wages in Bombay, corrected by the cost of living, were 117, as against
110 in this country. That means that, if you compare the position of the average wage-earner in this country with his position in 1914, he is only 10 per cent. better off, despite the increase in wages that he has had; and if you compare the position of the Bombay worker, you find that he is 17 per cent. better off. That, I suggest, is the only scientific comparison that you can make. Taking France, which is exceedingly interesting, the nominal wages in France are more than five times what they were in 1914, but, again, the cost of living has gone up so enormously in France that the real wages are only 116; that is to say, the French worker is a little better off than the worker in this country. In Germany the nominal wages are 1,590, as compared with 100 in 1914, but the worker is not a bit better off, although his nominal wages have increased. The result of this comparison—which is the only scientific comparison that can be made—as between wages in the different countries in 1921 and in 1914, is that you have in this country 110, in France 116, in India 117, and in Germany 100.
I want now to say just a word about the miners, to whom reference has been made. The number of miners has already been given, namely, 228,511. Of these, 137,000 are employed underground, and 91,000 above ground. There are 142,000 males employed, 78,000 women, and 7,602 children. I have no figures with regard to the earnings of miners which are at all comparable scientifically with the earnings in the factories, but these facts may be interesting. In 1900 the earnings per month per man were 6.82 rupees; in 1910 they were 10.36 rupees; and in 1922 they were 19 rupees—that is to say, in 22 years the earnings of miners in India have increased threefold. There is no need for me to refer again to the statistics of accidents, which were given by my hon. Friend who opened this discussion; but I find, according to the Report of the Mines Inspectors during the period to which my hon. Friend's figures related, that is to say, between 1910 and 1919, that the number of accidents per 1,000 was 1.46, as against 1.36 in this country.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the average age of the 7,000 children employed there?

Mr. RICHARDS: I could not give that off-hand.

Mr. DICKSON: Can my hon. Friend tell us the lowest age at which they are permitted?

Mr. RICHARDS: No. I understand the usual practice is for whole families to be employed.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: Have you the steel workers' wages?

Mr. RICHARDS: I want to say a word now about conditions of labour. The conditions of labour in India at present are more or less controlled by the International Labour Conference at Geneva, and India is one of the nations which is represented at that Conference by her own representatives. The labour conditions, consequently, are largely subject to the control of that body, and since 1919, when it was instituted, India has co-operated heartily in the work of that Conference. She has ratified more draft Conventions than almost any other country, and is one of the few countries in the world which have ratified the Washington Convention regarding the hours of labour. Our own country, I understand, has not ratified it as yet. India is the only country of chief industrial importance which has ratified the Convention. She has brought in a new Factory Act in 1922 and a new Mines Act in 1923 in order to give effect to the provisions of that Convention, and the Government of India have gone even further than it was necessary to go in order to give effect to the Hours Convention of 1919. That Convention does not apply to China, Persia or Siam, and there are special provisions both for Japan and for India. In the case of India the Convention prescribes a working week of 60 hours, a minimum age for night work of 14, and a minimum age for employment of 12. India, although she is entitled to have a 60-hours' week, has adopted a maximum of a 54-hour week for work below in the mines and a minimum age of 15 for night work, and has prohibited the night employment of women altogether. It is no exaggeration to say that the conditions of employment in India, speaking generally, are superior to those in Japan, and M. Thomas, the director of the office
at Geneva, in a report presented to the Geneva Conference of 1922, said:
The new social legislation of India is certainly a splendid result of which, the International Labour Office may well be proud.
There is also under consideration by the Government of India a proposal to remove women as well as children from the mines altogether, and consultation is taking place between the Government and the Provincial Governments with a view to giving effect to this as speedily as possible (to the provisions of that Bill). Everyone understands that it would cause considerable dislocation if an improvement of that kind were made immediately, and negotiations, I understand, are proceeding on the assumption that the removal should be complete within the next, say, five years. There is also a Bill for the registration and protection of trade unions which is prepared by the Government, and a new Workmen's Compensation Act which is to come in force on 1st July of this year, and they are contemplating the introduction of new machinery for conciliation. Of course, one cannot conceal the fact that, despite those "ideal conditions," occasionally we do have strikes in India. We had a strike of that character, and a very serious one, at the beginning of this year. I should like just to refer to two very regrettable causes in connection with that strike. First of all, there was the question of the payment of bonus. That question was investigated by a Committee set up by the Governor of Bombay, and, although I think the labourers were entitled to expect a bonus, seeing that they had had it for a good number of years, on the other hand, we must recognise this fact that the bonus was paid in previous years because these mills had been enjoying extremely high dividends, but during 1923 no such dividends had been paid.

Mr. MILLS: Will the hon. Gentleman say how much was put to reserve as compared with previous years?

Mr. RICHARDS: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. MILLS: Exactly six times as much.

Mr. RICHARDS: A very regrettable feature of that strike was this. Wages in the Bombay mills are supposed to be paid monthly, but they are paid on the 15th of the month following that when
they fall due. This is very unsatisfactory, and there is no apparent reason why the Bombay millowners should not follow the Bengal jute mills, where payment is made weekly. I am sure if that were done it would be a great boon to the very poor workers of Bombay, who have to come into the factories many miles from the country and are held up there for six weeks waiting for the money due to them. Just a word with regard to the other part of this Resolution. I was interested to find, for example, that the All-Indian Trade Union Congress passed a similar resolution in March this year urging on the Government the necessity of extending the basis of the franchise for the election of members of Local and Central Legislatures, and I should like to remind the House of Commons again, as was done by the right hon. Member for the English Universities, that this question was very carefully considered by the Joint Select Committee of the two Houses and I find that they made definite recommendations on three points. First, that there should be a more adequate representation of the rural community; secondly, that there should be a better representation of the wage-earning classes, particularly of the rural workers; and thirdly, which is one of the most difficult problems in connection with the extension of the franchise in India, that the representation of the depressed classes is really very inadequate. This is a very large question to enter into in any detail, but any one interested can find the remarks made on this question by the Government of India, pointing out that, although they were very anxious that the franchise should be extended, it is at bottom, as we all feel, a question of education. That is to say, it is not merely a question of constituencies. It is quite as much, in my opinion, a question of constituents. This question of the franchise extension is one which must necessarily arise in connection with any steps which may in due course be taken to revise the form of the Constitution and the powers of the Provincial Governments of India, and such questions may naturally be expected to arise in the inquiry, to which reference has already been made, which has been initiated by the Viceroy into the working of the Act of 1919, and which is already in progress, the Report of which we are shortly expecting to receive.

Earl WINTERTON: I think everyone on this side of the House, and I hope most hon. Members in other parts of the House who desire to see in Indian affairs a continuity of policy between one Government and another, will have heard with considerable pleasure the speech which the hon. Gentleman has just made. He has given, on the second occasion on which he has spoken in the House, an effective reply to the complaint which had been made from the benches behind him. I only regret that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills), who seconded the Resolution, was not in the House to hear the arguments of the hon. Gentleman. In answer to the point made by the Mover of the Resolution, I am going to refer to what has already been done to improve labour conditions in India. The hon. Member, who made a most striking speech, to which testimony has been paid from all quarters of the House, made a reference to the Government of which I was a Member, and said that questions had been put to us about the conditions of labour in India, and that some of the answers which we had given showed an appalling state of affairs. It suffices now to say, and I think that it is a fact which he should know, that those improvements, to which the Under-Secretary has just referred, which have placed India in a better position, from the point of view of modern industrial hygiene, than any other Asiatic country, were initiated when a wicked Conservative Government was in office in this country.
It is true that the matter was primarily a matter for the Government of India. It is true that the Indians themselves, through their Ministers and representatives, have more than the major part of the control over these matters, but it should be noticed that these improvements which have taken place—and it was an honest mistake of the Mover to suppose that nothing had been done—were done when the late Government were in power in this country. The Under-Secretary stated, and it is a fact, that, after all, the real problem in India was the problem of the land. India is an agricultural country, and an agricultural country to a greater extent almost than any other country, at any rate any other country of its size, in the whole world to-day, and he referred to some of
the reasons why the problem of the land is so difficult and why the poverty of the people is so great.
One of the reasons, undoubtedly, is the pressure of population which has been growing year by year, and which has grown especially since the British connection with India, because since that British connection steps have been taken to deal with the appalling famines and diseases which formerly devastated that country. Then there is the fact, which it is as well should be known to some Indians and to other extremists who would deny to this country any share in the benefits to India during the last 100 years, that some of the poverty is due to the terrific taxation, and to the draining away of the rights of the cultivators which went on in India before the days of British occupation, from which the land has never recovered. But the condition of affairs is primarily due to what the Under-Secretary very frankly stated, having regard to his position and to the position of his Government, as the lack of capital on the land in India. It was with the greatest pleasure that all of us on this side of the House heard such an admission from a member of the Government, and realised that, at any rate, capital is sometimes considered by some members of the Government to be an advantage. Some hon. Member opposite said that it was remarkable how with responsibility there comes a sense of responsibility. Never has that very true statement been better exemplified than in the frank and very sincere admission of the Under-Secretary of State to-night.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Will the Noble Lord give me the name of any Socialist who has ever decried capital?

Earl WINTERTON: Hundreds of Socialists have done so, and they are standing at the street corners to-night. You have only to go to these street corners to hear the statement made. I was very glad to hear the Under-Secretary say that one of the great difficulties connected with the position of the workers in India is the lack of capital in agriculture and in the agricultural machine generally in India The result of that is to be found in a matter to which reference was made either by the Under-Secretary or by an hon. Friend behind me. I
believe it was made by an hon. Friend behind me, who made a very able speech on a subject which so often obtains very little recognition in the Press, inasmuch as there is always a tendency to regard deliberations on Indian affairs as tedious. It was a speech which showed that there are Members in this House who really are competent to speak on Indian affairs, with a life-long experience of India behind them. The hon. Gentleman said that one of the features of agriculture in India was that a vast number of people working on the land, farmers and others, were in debt from the day of their birth to the day of their death. That is true, and it explains why in the East the moneylender, and particularly certain races which provide the majority of money-lenders, are so feared and hated because of the immense power which they have over the land. There, again, in justice to what this nation has done in India, and in every other Asiatic country with which we have had any connection, it should be stated that we have done more in 100 years to help the cultivator, and especially the small cultivator, the peasant, to free Himself from the clutches of the money-lender, than India, when under its own rule, did in 1,000 years. That is true of Egypt also, but particularly so is it true of India, I hope that the system of helping the cultivator by means of land banks and co-operation and in other ways will be continued.
All of us are agreed that much still remains to be done to raise the status of the ordinary peasant and labourer in India. What, after all, is the real bar and hindrance to the improvement of the great mass of the people in India? It is undoubtedly the existence of a system which produces 50,000,000 people out of something like 320,000,000 in British India who belong to the out-caste and depressed classes. I doubt if the House as a whole realises the position of these people. A statement was made the other day by a member of the Madras Council and a representative of one of the depressed classes. He gave evidence before the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Lee to show how out-caste children are excluded from schools and have to sit outside the schools and learn what they car of what is going on inside in that way. He gave examples of the quashing of
sentences by Brahmin Judges on men whose only offence was that they had used the same public roads as those used by the higher castes. It is a fact that in parts of India to-day, especially in Madras, a large number of these out-castes are not only debarred access to all temples, but are actually liable to physical attack if they make use in certain towns of some of the principal streets, or if they draw water from a well from which the higher castes draw water.
It has always been the policy, not only of successive British Governments but of every Englishman who has held office in India, from the days of John Company onwards—it has always been our national determination—to have the utmost regard for the religious scruples of the various peoples of India. We have carried out that policy probably to a degree that no other country coming in touch with Oriental peoples has ever carried it out—a deliberate policy of having the most scrupulous regard for religious customs widely differing from our own. I may say at the same time, that when these religious scruples go directly against the ideals of equality, which are at any rate aimed at in every democratic country to-day, it is very hard to see how, if they are persisted in, India can ever enjoy self-government on an equitable basis. I do not see how the problem is to be solved. It was, I think, the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead) who in an interruption to my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Milne) said that the caste system was not now as rigid as it had been, but I can assure him, from my personal knowledge and from my experience in an official position as Under-Secretary, that the amount of improvement is infinitesimal compared with the disabilities from which the out-castes suffer. Mr. Gandhi, who has a disarming way frequently of saying things which go against his own political faith, admitted with a frankness and fairness to which I, at any rate, pay tribute that they would not begin to get on to the road towards the universal brotherhood which he preached until the highest castes were prepared to embrace the lowest. What advance has he made in that direction, since Mr. Gandhi made that statement a couple of years ago, on the part of the Indians themselves, who are the only people who can effect a change? The British Government cannot do it, and no
Government in India could for a moment insist on the Indians doing it of their own accord.
I wish to mention an incident which occurred to me personally. A very distinguished Indian friend of mine came to see me when I was at the India Office about a certain matter connected with the disabilities of Indians in Africa. I said, "You talk to me of these disabilities in Africa. It is an unpleasant and painful reminder, but I have to give it, and I have to tell you that public opinion in this country, irrespective of politics, feels you would be in a stronger position to talk of these disabilities were it not for the existence of the disabilities from which, as a result of the religious system in India, 50,000,000 people suffer in that country." My Indian friend turned to me and said—and this part of the story appears to be against myself, but I will give the answer to it—"You talk about disabilities. Are there none in this country?" He pointed dramatically towards the street and said, "Are you prepared, as a blue-blooded Tory, to treat as a brother one of the unemployed or one of the newspaper sellers out there?" The answer I gave was this:
Whether I am prepared to do so or not is a matter of individual taste; but there is nothing in this country, and there are no disabilities in this country which prevent a man who starts as one of the unemployed in the street, from attaining to the highest offices in the State.
My words would have had even greater point to-day when we see—and it is a credit to the Government, to this House, and to individuals in this House that it should be so—the rapidity of the journey from the footplate of an engine to a Court suit. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) makes a remark, but it is almost as difficult for me to understand his vernacular as it is to understand Indian dialect. I assure the hon. Member that what I said was intended to be quite complimentary. [Laughter.] I am rather surprised at that laughter. Is there anything that is not in the highest degree creditable to a man who can rise from the lowest position and attain to the position of a Minister of the Crown?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: There was exception made to the wearing of Court dress.

Earl WINTERTON: If there be anything that offends hon. Members opposite in my reference to Court dress, I shall be glad to withdraw it and merely to refer to the Treasury Bench. [Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members will allow me to continue, because this is a serious matter in which the House is interested, namely, the position of the people in India. I do not see that in the present state of affairs that exists in India, between the depressed classes and the highest castes, respectively, you can ever have under a purely Indian administration, assuming that such an administration be possible, a proper representation of these people unless you have an alteration of the whole basis of society in India, an alteration which can only be brought about by the Indians themselves. I should be interested to hear on other occasions, when we have longer time for debate, what is the answer on that point of those hon. Members who to-night have urged that there should be an extension of self-government in India.
I should like to say that to do the Indian public man or the Indian politician justice, the people in the Councils, especially the extremists, the men who hold the most advanced views and who are in favour of India's freedom from British control, no longer quote, as they used to do, Macaulay and Burns. They no longer say they want to build up a system in India similar to the system advocated by reformers in this country 50 or 100 years ago. They no longer talk like that. They say: "What we are asking for is Indian self-government," and they never talk of democratic Indian self-government, which is a very different thing. In other words, the extremist opinion in India to-day, so far as it is vocal, is the opinion which represents the point of view of a talented but very small and narrow oligarchy, mainly composed of journalists and lawyers.
I agree fully with what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. Fisher). I am at one with him in saying that those of us who, like him and me, were responsible either for the inception or for the working of the reforms have always contemplated the advance of India, through successive grants of self-governing power, given freely by this House, to the goal of
what is loosely termed Dominion self-government, but let it be clearly understood that no Government in this country, in my opinion, whether Liberal, Labour, or Conservative, will ever succeed in carrying through this House such a proposal unless the rights of the depressed classes and the outcasts in India are guaranteed under it. There are 50,000,000 of those people, out of 320,000,000. They have been among the best friends of law and order and British rule in India, they supplied in the War no mean contribution to India's effort in that War, and I say most emphatically that I do not believe that any Government in this country would have the power, even if it wanted to do so, to carry through a Bill conferring, in the future, anything like Dominion self-government in India unless in that Bill the lowest caste man enjoyed, in an electoral sense, equal rights with the highest caste man. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!'] That is really the gist of the problem. We are really all at one in this, and I am glad to have the assenting cheers of hon. Members of the Labour party. What should, therefore, be the advice which this House—not the Government, nor we on this side, nor any section, but the House as a whole—ought to give to the Indian peoples—I use the word advisedly—and especially to the leaders of public opinion in the Assembly? It is this: We should say: If you want the day to come when there is to be something like Dominion self-government in India, you have to prepare the ground yourselves by removing educational and other disabilities from the depressed classes and from the outcasts, by removing their grievances, and by generally treating them as human beings ought to be treated in every community that calls itself civilised.

Lieut.-Colonel MEYLER: I should like to congratulate the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) on the moderation with which he has dealt to-night with the interests of one-fifth of the people of the globe, in whom we have a trusteeship. The difference between his remarks to-night and the unfortunate heat of his remarks on a previous occasion is as the difference between the footplate and the Court suit, and I hope that, when we are dealing with this question on another occasion, all speakers will
remember the vast importance of what is said here to the people in India. We shall have no opportunity to debate this matter out fully, and I should like to have had the chance of giving experiences, which are possibly unique, concerning Indian labour that I have had, but I have seen Indian labour imported into another country, and then I have seen the results on that labour of living under different social conditions and getting better advantages. The labour that was imported from India into Natal was of a low class, but those who remained in South Africa and brought up their children there have now developed into a far better type of person. We shall find that in India also, if we give them better economic conditions, the whole race will improve. I think that we should bear that in mind, and watch what happens to the people when they have had better opportunities.

It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — PRIVILEGES.

Ordered, "That the Committee of Privileges do consist of Ten Members."—[Mr. F. Hall.]

The Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, Mr. Baldwin, Mr. Fisher, Sir Ellis Hume-Williams, Sir Douglas Hogg, Mr. Leif Jones, Mr. Jowitt, Mr. Raw-linson and Mr. Trevelyan nominated members of the Committee.

Ordered, "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records."

Ordered, "That Five be the quorum."—[Mr. F. Hall.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — EARL OF CAVAN (SPEECH).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. F. Hall.]

Captain BERKELEY: I desire to call the attention of the House to certain aspects of the speech made on 3rd May at the Royal Academy banquet by the
Chief of the General Imperial Staff, Lord Cavan. I need hardly state that, having served in a very junior capacity in the army of which Lord Cavan was commander during the War, nothing I am about to say is intended to reflect upon a very excellent officer and a very great gentleman. But there is, as I have said, an important public side to the question, and it is that which reflects, as it does, entirely upon the Minister, and in no sense upon the officer himself. It is to that aspect of the case to which I wish to draw attention. Hon. Members will probably agree that it is most important and most essential that a great public servant like the Chief of the Imperial General Staff must have, in the discharge of his duties, the full confidence and support of hon. Members of this House of Commons. It follows, as a corollary to that, that he must never be dragged into any of the controversies, or implicated in the Debates, that take place here. As to the kind of thing that is most undesirable, it will be remembered that in the last Parliament there was considerable heat aroused amongst hon. Members above the Gangway and also amongst hon. Members of my own party, on a certain occasion when the First Sea Lord was invited to the House to address Members on the question, purely controversial, as to whether or not a dock should be built at Singapore. The speech of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff seems to have got very near to that dangerous ground.
What took place at the Royal Academy banquet? Lord Cavan replied to certain criticisms of what has been called the mechanicalisation of the Army, which would develop in the course of the Debate on the Army Estimates, by two very distinguished officers of the Army, members of the Liberal party, one of them a former Secretary of State for War. Lord Cavan was perfectly within his rights in speaking on the general question of the efficiency and morale of the Army and on the subject of general military policy—that was obviously within his province. But beyond that he would not be entitled to go without authority. He did not go without authority, for we have heard the statement of the Secretary for War that the whole of the subject-matter of Lord
Cavan's speech was settled in consultation with him beforehand. In these circumstances I feel it is no reflection whatever upon Lord Cavan to raise this question and to put certain specific questions to the Secretary for War.
In the first place, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he authorised Lord Cavan to name Members of this House in a public speech, and comment in strong terms upon the opinions they expressed in the Debate? The second question is—as distinct from the reply to criticisms made in speeches in the country on public platforms, to which an appropriate reply has always been by some other speech at some other public meeting, or even at some function like the Royal Academy banquet or the Lord Mayor's banquet—as distinguished from occasions of that kind; not officially to reply to criticisms of policy on the efficiency of the Army made in this House, The question is this: When he was authorising the Chief of the Imperial General Staff to deal with these questions in this public way, did he authorise him to make use of phrases such as, "There is not a word of truth in it," "entirely incorrect," and strong expressions of that kind, with which to qualify the opinions which had been put forward in the Debate on the Army Estimates? And if he did so authorise Lord Cavan, does he consider it proper to sanction the use of epithets of that kind by a very high public official, when he is dealing with speeches made in this House by hon. Members, one of whom is an ex-Secretary of State for War. Finally, will the Secretary of State explain this? He said in answer to my supplementary question:
I was aware of every statement the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was going to make in my absence.
If the Secretary of State for War was incapable of replying to the criticisms at the time of the Debate in the House, would it not have been possible for him to select some further occasion in this House to develop the subject and reply to these points? I know other hon. Members are equally interested with myself in the purely constitutional aspect of this matter, and they will also wish to speak to this question. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to give us a full reply.

Major-General SEELY: As my name has been mentioned in connection with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Berkeley), perhaps the House will forgive me for intervening at once to say that I appreciate to the full the importance of the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend, namely, that we must maintain in this House the principle that the speeches we make cannot be acutely criticised by public servants. This is no party question, and it would apply exactly the same to every other party. It is a doctrine which must be maintained. It is quite proper and right—I speak as an ex-Secretary of State for War—that Debates in this House should be referred to by our great public servants by way of elucidation and comment. But when it comes to controversy, it does raise at once the constitutional issue which we always wish to avoid, as to responsibility of Ministers to Parliament, and the responsibility of our great public servants to the Ministries under whom they serve. I think my hon. and gallant Friend, therefore, was quite right to raise the question, though I had not the least idea he was going to raise it until he gave me warning. I should not have raised it myself, seeing I was the person referred to in one of the news paper articles which I have seen.
Having said that, and having entirely endorsed what the hon. and gallant Member said, that it is important the rule should be maintained, I would like to add that the particular point which I ventured to bring before the House was the vital importance of saving human life by greatly increasing, if possible, fire power, that is, machine-guns, artillery, indeed everything to avoid the sacrifice of life which caused such great grief to everybody in the late War. Of all the soldiers whom I knew in the War, who held any high position, Lord Cavan was the one who most sincerely and cordially agreed with that view, and who proved it not only when he was in high position, but especially when he was commanding first a battalion, then a brigade—when I saw much of his work—and, of course, later on, an army corps. When he commanded a battalion and a brigade he was especially distinguished, almost above all other officers, by his care of his men and by his determination to save them. He was the first man to get a real cure for trench fever. He was the first man who
really got the hang of cross-fire to cover an attack. I cannot say how great a debt the Army owes to Lord Cavan for doing in his early days the very thing for which I pleaded a month ago in this House. Therefore, I desire to state that we owe a debt we can never repay to Lord Cavan for having carried through in his early days the very thing on the importance of which I insisted.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Walsh): I trust my hon. and gallant Friend will permit me to reply briefly to this matter, because only a few minutes remain, and I should be sorry if the Debate were to end without a satisfactory reply being given, because of the lapse of time. Each party in the House must agree upon the necessity of maintaining the true constitutional position that Ministers of the Crown are responsible for the acts of their servants in the Department over which they preside. I do not want to whittle that down for one moment. First of all, I desire to make one fact quite clear. The answer I gave yesterday was categorically correct. The great General whose conduct is under discussion—

Captain BERKELEY: It is your conduct.

Mr. WALSH: Well, his conduct and my responsibility. He did not mention the name of any Member of this House.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I called attention to a telegram in which the name was reported.

Mr. WALSH: I say again that no names of any Member of this House were mentioned.

Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: On a point of Order. I have here a cutting sent to me by the General Press Cutting Association—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order, and, unless the Minister choose to give way, it is not in order to interrupt.

Mr. STURROCK: Is the right Gentleman aware that in the "Daily Telegraph"—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. If the Minister gives way it is all right.

Mr. WALSH: As I stated yesterday in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Colonel Rudkin), the Chief of the Imperial General Staff did not mention the names of any of the Members of this House in his speech. As I also stated yesterday, although I have read various reports, I have not seen any specific mention of the names of those to whose criticisms the Chief of the Imperial General Staff referred. I have made further inquiry, in particular, to the report of the speech to which the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. E. Brown) called attention I find that, while the Chief of the Imperial General Staff did not mention the names of any Member of this House, two names were mentioned in the Report referred to, and they were mentioned owing to an unfortunate misunderstanding. I regret that misunderstanding should have occurred, especially as it concerns a newspaper invariably distinguished for its accuracy. On the general question I have nothing to add to what I said at Question Time yesterday, but I think I ought to say this. I am asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby whether I authorised strong expressions? When an officer occupying the distinguished position of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff comes to his superior for the time being and says he will be present at such and such a function, and I tell him I cannot be present because of previous engagements, am I, not merely to go into consultation with him upon the points that will be submitted, but to tell him the exact form in which he is to submit them? I did not authorise strong expressions—

Mr. E. BROWN: On a point of personal explanation. It was not I who asked that question, but the hon. and gallant Member for East Nottingham (Captain Berkeley).

Mr. WALSH: I know; I am referring to the hon. Gentleman who raised the point. Surely no two men can undertake in reference to an engagement of this character that when one has to be absent he is to tell the other not only the points upon which he is to speak, but the exact expressions he is to use. That did not take place and cannot take place in any circumstances. I was asked, Would it not have been better or would it not have been right to have replied for myself on these
matters in this House? I did so reply upon every point to which the Chief of the Imperial General Staff referred in his speech at the Royal Academy. I might not have replied effectively. My knowledge, indeed, is not encyclopædic. I have only been a very few weeks in office but I have endeavoured within my limited opportunities to make myself acquainted with the points that came up for discussion upon the Estimates, and upon every one of those points I replied.
What were the points that were raised by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff? The first point was the mechanicalisation of the Army. That was specially referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Colonel Rudkin). I stated, to the best of my ability, what had taken place. It was probably thought, and very properly thought, that mechanicalisation had not gone to a desirable degree, but that is quite a matter of opinion, and I cannot speak, from my limited knowledge, as to whether it had or had not. I replied, however, to the best of my ability. The next point was research and experiment, and I especially praised what had been done, in what I thought was a glowing passage of words. The next point was the machine-gun equipment, which was raised by three or four hon. and gallant Gentlemen below the Gangway. I submitted the information at my disposal, and said to the House that, although there are not so many divisions as there were during the War, or, indeed, as before the War, in so far as the divisions are in existence, their equipment is carried to a higher degree of efficiency than before the War. Of course, many of my hon. and gallant Friends doubted that, and they were perfectly entitled to doubt it. It is a matter upon which opinions may vary. But I did my best to reply. The next point was that of the education and training of officers.

Mr. STURROCK: On a point of Order, may I ask—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order. Surely the hon. Member has been long enough here to understand what is a point of Order.

Mr. WALSH: The hon. Member for Rugby asked whether the point which had been submitted by Lord Cavan at
the Academy banquet could not have been replied to by myself in the House. I did so reply. I am entitled to answer his question.

Mr. STURROCK: Nothing of the kind.

Mr. WALSH: The Speaker allowed it, and we are not competent to sit in judgment on the Speaker's action. The Speaker permitted the question to be submitted and I have a right to reply. There can be no point of Order. I replied on the matter of the education and training of officers. I want to repeat categorically and without the slightest equivocation that Lord Cavan did not mention the names of any Member of this House in that speech. He did not deal with any point whatever of controversial policy. He dealt only with matters of administration, and with them he was entitled to deal. Such references as were made, although not by name, were made in the most courteous and considerate tone, and I am sure that no person of the most tender susceptibilities could take offence at the language used by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. I think that I have a right to make that statement.

Lieut.-Colonel RUDKIN: I am in general agreement with what has been said. Nothing is further from my intention than to say anything personal against the Chief of the Imperial General Staff for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, having served under him in India. There are several important principles involved here. In the first place the Secretary of State said, in reply to a question, that he was aware of the statement made by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. If that is true why did he state that no names of Members of the House had been mentioned in the speech at the Academy banquet? I have here a Press cutting from the "Daily Telegraph" of the 5th instant and I do not understand what
the right hon. Gentleman means when he says there is some mistake. The report refers to the names of the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Major-General Seely) and the hon. and gallant Member for Loughborough (Brigadier-General Spears) and says that the latter implied "that he had failed to grasp the lessons of the War." That is sufficient to show that what I say is correct. It is impossible to say how a mistake could be made. It is childish to assume that is the case. How can the Secretary of State for War reconcile his statement with the fact that the "Daily Telegraph" report gives the names of those two Members. Those statements are irreconcilable with one another. Either the Secretary of State for War saw every statement which the Chief of the Imperial General Staff made before the speech was delivered or he did not, and his statement was inaccurate. The House is entitled to an explanation from the Secretary of State. Does he or does he not take the full responsibility for the statement made by the Chief of the Imperial General Staff? Does he approve of permanent officials criticising public speeches made in the House? Apart from this, the general effect of the remarks of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff was to make it appear that criticism levelled at the War Office was ill-informed and frivolous. If this is the opinion of the Secretary of State, why did he not take this attitude in the House and say so himself? That seems to me to be the crux of the whole matter. This matter should have devolved on the Secretary of State. He was here to answer these criticisms, and did not do so. If he did not feel equal to doing so, he should have given instructions, and one of his subordinates should have done so.

It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.